Katherine L. Kahn
California State University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Katherine L. Kahn.
Journal of Oncology Practice | 2016
Anne M. Walling; Nancy L. Keating; Katherine L. Kahn; Sydney Dy; Jennifer W. Mack; Jennifer Malin; Neeraj K. Arora; John L. Adams; Anna Liza M. Antonio; Diana M. Tisnado
PURPOSE Little is known about factors associated with unmet needs for symptom management in patients with cancer. METHODS Patients with a new diagnosis of lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance cohort completed a survey approximately 5 months after diagnosis (N = 5,422). We estimated the prevalence of unmet need for symptom management, defined as patients who report that they wanted help for at least one common symptom (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, diarrhea) during the 4 weeks before the survey but did not receive it. We identified patient factors associated with unmet need by using logistic regression with random effects to account for clustering within study sites. RESULTS Overall, 15% (791 of 5,422) of patients had at least one unmet need for symptom management. Adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, African American race, being uninsured or poor, having early-stage lung cancer, and the presence of moderate to severe symptoms were associated with unmet need (all P < .05). Furthermore, patients who rated their physicians communication score < 80 (on a 0 to 100 scale) had adjusted rates of an unmet need for symptom management that were more than twice as high as patients who rated their physicians with a perfect communication score (23.1% v 10.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSION A significant minority of patients with newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer report unmet needs for symptom management. Interventions to improve symptom management should consider the importance of physician communication to the patients experience of disease.
Journal of Oncology Practice | 2017
Stacy W. Gray; Benjamin Kim; Lynette M. Sholl; Angel M. Cronin; Aparna R. Parikh; Carrie N. Klabunde; Katherine L. Kahn; David A. Haggstrom; Nancy L. Keating
PURPOSE Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non-guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use. RESULTS Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non-guideline-endorsed tests (eg, Onco typeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05). CONCLUSION Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests.
Journal of Oncology Practice | 2014
Anthony C. Wong; Shannon Stock; Deborah Schrag; Katherine L. Kahn; Talya Salz; Mary E. Charlton; Selwyn O. Rogers; Karyn A. Goodman; Nancy L. Keating
Archive | 2001
Virginia S. Erickson; Marjorie L. Pearson; Patricia A. Ganz; John L. Adams; Katherine L. Kahn
Archive | 2016
Diana M. Tisnado; Katherine L. Kahn
Journal of Oncology Practice | 2016
Aparna R. Parikh; Nancy L. Keating; Pang Hsiang Liu; Stacy W. Gray; Carrie N. Klabunde; Katherine L. Kahn; David A. Haggstrom; Sapna Syngal; Benjamin Kim
Archive | 2011
Jan Lee; Betty L. Chang; Marjorie L. Pearson; Marc N. Elliott; Katherine L. Kahn; Lisa V. Rubenstein
Archive | 2008
Katherine L. Kahn; Diana M. Tisnado; John L. Adams; Honghu H. Liu; Wen-Pin Chen; Fang Ashlee Hu; Carol Mangione; Ron D. Hays; Cheryl L. Damberg
Archive | 2006
Maria Hewitt; Joseph V. Simone; J. Malin; Katherine L. Kahn; Elizabeth A. McGlynn; Steven M. Asch; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison H. DeCristofaro; Eve A. Kerr; John L. Adams; Eric C. Schneider; Arnold M. Epstein; Ezekiel J. Emanuel
Archive | 2004
Diana M. Tisnado; Katherine L. Kahn