Melissa Y Carpentier

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States

Are you Melissa Y Carpentier?

Claim your profile

Publications (5)19.41 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the value of genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) for high-risk breast cancer survivors, little is known about their uptake and validity of self-report data. This study evaluated the accuracy of self-reported genetic counseling and testing rates among breast cancer survivors. The current analysis focused on Stage 0-III female breast cancer survivors who were identified from an academic medical center's cancer registry and responded to a mailed survey (N = 452). Self-reported rates of GC and GT were validated using information from the electronic medical record. Overall, 30.8 % of survivors reported having seen a genetic counselor in the time period after their breast cancer diagnosis and 33.6 % noted having a genetic test. Concordance and specificity were good for both genetic questions; concordance agreements ranged from 86-88 %, while specificity was 83-86 %. Sensitivity (97-98 %) and negative predictive values (99 %) were excellent, while the positive predictive values for both GC and GT were poor (59-63 %). Among breast cancer survivors, self-reports of GC and GT were generally accurate, although a subset of respondents overestimated genetic service utilization. Future work should focus on validating GC and GT self-reports in medically underserved populations. Genetic counseling and testing are valuable aspects of survivorship care for high-risk breast cancer survivors; accurate understanding of their use is important for survivors, clinicians, and researchers.
    Journal of Cancer Survivorship 08/2013; · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Regular surveillance decreases the risk of recurrent cancer in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. However, studies suggest that receipt of follow-up tests is not consistent with guidelines. This systematic review aimed to: (1) examine receipt of recommended post-treatment surveillance tests and procedures among CRC survivors, including adherence to established guidelines, and (2) identify correlates of CRC surveillance. METHODS: Systematic searches of Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus databases were conducted using terms adapted for each database's keywords and subject headings. Studies were screened for inclusion using a three-step process: (1) lead author reviewed abstracts of all eligible studies; (2) coauthors reviewed random 5 % samples of abstracts; and (3) two sets of coauthors reviewed all "maybe" abstracts. Discrepancies were adjudicated through discussion. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies are included in the review. Overall adherence ranged from 12 to 87 %. Within the initial 12 to 18 months post-treatment, adherence to recommended office visits was 93 %. Adherence ranged from 78 to 98 % for physical exams, 18-61 % for colonoscopy, and 17-71 % for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing. By 2 to 3 years post-treatment, cumulative adherence ranged from 70 to 88 % for office visits, 89-93 % for physical exams, 49-94 % for colonoscopy, and 7-79 % for CEA testing. Between 18 and 28 % of CRC survivors received greater than recommended overall surveillance; overuse of physical exams (42 %), colonoscopy (24-76 %), and metastatic disease testing (1-29 %) was also prevalent. Studies of correlates of CRC surveillance focused on sociodemographic and disease/treatment characteristics, and patterns of association were inconsistent across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Deviation from surveillance recommendations includes both under- and overuse. Examination of modifiable determinants is needed to inform interventions targeting appropriate and timely receipt of recommended surveillance. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Among CRC survivors, it remains unclear what modifiable psychosocial factors are associated with the observed under- and overuse of surveillance. Understanding and intervening with these psychosocial factors is critical to improving adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance and thereby reducing mortality among this group of survivors.
    Journal of Cancer Survivorship 05/2013; · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Little is known about cancer survivors' receptivity to being contacted through cancer registries for research and health promotion efforts. We sought to (1) determine breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors' responsiveness to a mailed survey using an academic medical center's cancer registry, (2) assess whether responsiveness varied according to sociodemographic characteristics and medical history, and (3) examine the prevalence and correlates of respondents' awareness and willingness to be contacted through the state cancer registry for future research studies. METHODS: Stage 0-III breast and CRC survivors diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2009 were identified from an academic medical center cancer registry. Survivors were mailed an invitation letter with an opt-out option, along with a survey assessing sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, and follow-up cancer care access and utilization. RESULTS: A total of 452 (31.4 %) breast and 53 (22.2 %) CRC survivors responded. Willingness to be contacted through the state cancer registry was high among both breast (74 %) and CRC (64 %) respondents even though few were aware of the registry and even fewer knew that their information was in the registry. In multivariable analyses, tumor stage I and not having a family history of cancer were associated with willingness among breast and CRC survivors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of state cancer registries to contact survivors for participation in research studies. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors would benefit from partnerships between researchers and cancer registries that are focused on health promotion interventions.
    Journal of Cancer Survivorship 12/2012; · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous reporting guidelines are available to help authors write higher-quality papers more efficiently. Almost 200 are listed on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network's website and they vary in authority, usability, and breadth, making it difficult to decide which one(s) to use. This paper provides consistent information about guidelines for preventive medicine and public health and a framework and sequential approach for selecting them. The EQUATOR guidelines were reviewed for relevance to target audiences; selected guidelines were classified as "core" (frequently recommended) or specialized, and the latter were grouped by their focus. Core and specialized guidelines were coded for indicators of authority (simultaneous publication in multiple journals, rationale, scientific background supporting each element, expertise of designers, permanent website/named group), usability (presence of checklists and examples of good reporting), and breadth (article sections covered). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Selected guidelines are presented in four tables arranged to facilitate selection: core guidelines, all of which pertain to major research designs; guidelines for additional study designs; topical guidelines; and guidelines for particular article sections. A flow diagram provides an overview. The framework and sequential approach will enable authors as well as editors, peer reviewers, researchers, and systematic reviewers to make optimal use of available guidelines to improve the transparency, clarity, and rigor of manuscripts and research protocols and the efficiency in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    American journal of preventive medicine 10/2012; 43(4):e31-42. · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adjuvant hormonal therapy significantly improves long-term survival of breast cancer patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. Despite the proven clinical efficacy of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors, many breast cancer survivors either fail to take the correct dosage at the prescribed frequency (adherence) or discontinue therapy (persistence). This systematic review aims to: (1) determine the prevalence of adherence and persistence to adjuvant hormonal therapy among breast cancer survivors in clinical practice, and (2) identify correlates of adherence and persistence. We searched Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for studies that measured rates and/or correlates of adherence and/or persistence to adjuvant hormonal therapy. Studies were reviewed in a multi-step process: (1) the lead author screened titles and abstracts of all potentially eligible studies; (2) each coauthor reviewed a random 5 % sample of abstracts; and (3) two sets of coauthors each reviewed half of all "maybe" abstracts. Any disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached. Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Prevalence of adherence ranged from 41 to 72 % and discontinuation (i.e., nonpersistence) ranged from 31 to 73 %, measured at the end of 5 years of treatment. Extremes of age (older or younger), increasing out-of-pocket costs, follow-up care with a general practitioner (vs. oncologist), higher CYP2D6 activity, switching from one form of therapy to another, and treatment side effects were negatively associated with adherence and/or persistence. Taking more medications at baseline, referral to an oncologist, and earlier year at diagnosis were positively associated with adherence and/or persistence. Adherence and persistence to adjuvant hormonal therapy among breast cancer survivors is suboptimal. Many of the correlates of adherence and persistence studied to date are not modifiable. Our review reveals a critical need for further research on modifiable factors associated with adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy, and the development of behavioral interventions to improve adherence in this population.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 06/2012; 134(2):459-78. · 4.47 Impact Factor