Search

LBA505 Background: Premature ovarian failure (POF) is a common toxicity of CT. Risk depends on type and amount of CT, age, and perhaps ovarian cycling at the time of CT. POEMS is a SWOG-coordinated phase III randomized study to evaluate whether LHRH analog administration with CT for early-stage breast cancer (BC) would reduce POF.Premenopausal patients (PT) age .05). POF rates were 22% in the standard arm and 8% in the GN arm (OR=0.30, 95% CI: 0.10-0.87, p=.03 [unadjusted analysis]; OR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.11-1.14, p=0.08 [adjusted logistic regression analysis]). In a sensitivity analysis defining 2-year POF more liberally as either amenorrhea or elevated FSH, 45% in the standard arm and 20% in the GN arm had POF (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.12-0.70, p=.006). There were 13 pregnancies in the standard arm and 22 in the GN arm (OR=2.22, 95% CI: 1.00-4.92, p=.05). DFS and OS were better in the GN arm (Cox regression, including stage: HR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.24-0.97, p=.04; HR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.18-1.00, p=.05, respectively).LHRH analog administration with CT was associated with less POF and more pregnancies. In an exploratory analysis, GN use in premenopausal ER-negative BC was associated with improved DFS and OS.NCT00068601.

LBA505 Background: Premature ovarian failure (POF) is a common toxicity of CT. Risk depends on type and amount of CT, age, and perhaps ovarian cycling at the time of CT. POEMS is a SWOG-coordinated phase III randomized study to evaluate whether LHRH analog administration with CT for early-stage breast cancer (BC) would reduce POF.Premenopausal patients (PT) age .05). POF rates were 22% in the standard arm and 8% in the GN arm (OR=0.30, 95% CI: 0.10-0.87, p=.03 [unadjusted analysis]; OR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.11-1.14, p=0.08 [adjusted logistic regression analysis]). In a sensitivity analysis defining 2-year POF more liberally as either amenorrhea or elevated FSH, 45% in the standard arm and 20% in the GN arm had POF (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.12-0.70, p=.006). There were 13 pregnancies in the standard arm and 22 in the GN arm (OR=2.22, 95% CI: 1.00-4.92, p=.05). DFS and OS were better in the GN arm (Cox regression, including stage: HR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.24-0.97, p=.04; HR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.18-1.00, p=.05, respectively).LHRH analog administration with CT was associated with less POF and more pregnancies. In an exploratory analysis, GN use in premenopausal ER-negative BC was associated with improved DFS and OS.NCT00068601.

BackgroundPerinatal morbidity and mortality are significant public health issues with an enduring impact on the health and well-being of women and their families. Millions of pregnant women now download and use mobile applications to access, store, and share health information. However, little is known about the consequences. An investigation of their impact on perinatal health outcomes is particularly topical. ObjectiveTo determine the effects of mobile app interventions during pregnancy on influencing healthy maternal behavior and improving perinatal health outcomes. MethodsSearches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, WHO Global Health Library, POPLINE, and CABI Global Health were conducted with no date or language restrictions. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included if they reported perinatal health outcomes of interventions targeting pregnant women, using mobile apps compared with other communication modalities or with standard care. The primary outcome measure was the change in maternal behaviors (as defined by trial authors), by intervention goals. Two reviewers independently extracted data using standardized forms. ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 456 participants were included. All studies targeted participants in early pregnancy; however, wide variation was evident in participant characteristics, intervention, and study outcomes measures. Three trials were based in hospital settings, comparing women using mobile apps with routine antenatal care. One community-based trial gave all participants a device to promote physical activity; the intervention arm was also given a mobile app. All studies reported data for the primary outcome measure, describing some benefit from the intervention compared with controls. However, few statistically significant primary or secondary outcomes were reported. Due to insufficient data, the planned meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were not performed. ConclusionsDue to limited numbers, heterogeneity of interventions, comparators, and outcome measures, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effects of mobile application interventions during pregnancy on maternal knowledge, behavior change, and perinatal health outcomes. As millions of women utilize mobile apps during pregnancy, rigorous studies are essential for health care and maternity care providers to optimally design, implement, and evaluate interventions.

Aim: Little is known about the attitudes of Australian patients with a history of breast cancer toward the reuse of administrative health data and clinical trial data. Issues of consent, privacy, and information security are key to the discussion. Cancer care and research provides an opportune setting to develop an understanding of attitudes toward data sharing and reuse in individuals with a history of breast cancer. Methods: An anonymous, online questionnaire for individuals with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer was distributed by two peak bodies (Breast Cancer Trials [BCT] and Breast Cancer Network of Australia [BCNA]) to their memberships between July 14, 2020 and October 17, 2020. Results were captured in RedCap; data analysis was undertaken using Stata, and a thematic analysis of free text responses was undertaken using NVivo. Results: One hundred and thirty‐two complete responses were received. Twenty‐three percent of respondents had participated in a clinical trial, and 12% were currently receiving treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, or endocrine). Respondents were supportive of the secondary use of de‐identified administrative health data and clinical trial data, but showed concern about data security and privacy. Respondents emphasized that the reuse of data should be for improved societal health outcomes, not profit. Many assumed secondary analysis was already undertaken on de‐identified administrative health data and clinical trial data. Conclusions: Respondents were supportive of the secondary use of de‐identified administrative health and clinal trial data within the established bounds of good clinical practice and ethical oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]