Search

Aim: Social isolation in cancer patients is correlated with prognosis and is a potential mediator of treatment completion. Black women with endometrial cancer (EC) are at increased risk for social isolation when compared with White patients. We developed the Social Interventions for Support during Treatment for Endometrial Cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) study to compare and evaluate interventions to address social isolation among Black women with high-risk EC in USA. The primary objective of the SISTER study is to determine whether virtual support interventions improve treatment completion compared with Enhanced Usual Care. Secondary objectives include comparing effectiveness virtual evidence-based interventions and evaluating barriers and facilitators to social support delivery. Patients & methods: This is a multi-site prospective, open-label, community-engaged randomized controlled trial, consisting of three intervention arms: enhanced usual care, facilitated support group and one-to-one peer support. Primary outcome will be measured using relative dose. Qualitative semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to contextualize the relative degree or lack thereof of social isolation, over time. Data analysis: Primary analysis will be based on an intent-to-treat analysis. Multivariable analysis will be performed to determine the effect of the intervention on the primary and secondary outcomes of interest, relative dose and social isolation score. Semi-structured interviews will be qualitatively analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches of content analysis. Discussion/conclusion: Endometrial cancer mortality disproportionately affects Black women, and social isolation contributes to this disparity. The SISTER study aims to identify whether and to what extent differing social support vehicles improve key outcomes for Black women in the United States with high-risk EC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04930159 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ., Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy., Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics., Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment., Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup., Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.