Search

Introduction: The limited availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or inadequate accessibility to acquire foods can result in food insecurity. This study was conducted to investigate access and attitudes among private university students in a Colombo suburb, Sri Lanka to acquire healthy foods. Methods: A self-administered pre-validated questionnaire was used to interview a total of 103 undergraduate students who were conveniently recruited from private universities. Indications of food insecurity were assessed in terms of dietary habits. Relationships between demographic characteristics and dietary habits were determined. Access to healthy foods was based on availability of healthy foods such as herbal porridge, boiled grains and fruit salads at their university premises, and the students’ willingness to buy them. Results: The majority of the subjects were females (60.2%) and 66.7% of the subjects resided outside their family homes. Frequency of consuming at least one serving per week of grain, milk, fruits & vegetables showed no significant relationship with gender. Location of residence was significantly related to consumption of grains (P=<0.000). The results revealed that 73.1% of the subjects had no access to healthy foods in their respective university premises, while more than half (61.3%) were not satisfied with the foods they consumed. Conclusion: This study revealed a lack of access to healthy foods in private higher educational premises in the Colombo suburb, indicating the risk of food insecurity among university students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survivors show low physical activity participation rates in the U.S. However, there are limited national-level data on disparities in the prevalence of meeting physical activity guidelines among women with and without breast cancer. We aimed to evaluate national-level trends in meeting physical activity guidelines across demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of breast cancer survivors and women without cancer., Methods: Data for women aged ≥35-years with and without breast cancer were obtained from the 2004-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We used NHIS survey weights to generate national-level prevalence estimates and calculate absolute and relative indices of disparity for breast cancer survivors and women without cancer meeting aerobic (150-mins/week) and muscle strengthening guidelines (2-sessions/week) stratified by demographic (e.g., race/ethnicity) and socioeconomic (e.g., homeownership) characteristics., Results: We included 5,845 breast cancer survivors and 160,162 women without cancer. The weighted percentage of breast cancer survivors meeting aerobic guidelines was 37.7% compared to 40.9% of women without cancer. Fewer women met muscle strengthening guidelines. There were lower proportions of women who were younger (<50-years), were non-Hispanic Black, were Hispanic, worked 35+ hours/week, or rented their home among breast cancer survivors meeting aerobic guidelines compared to women without cancer meeting aerobic guidelines., Conclusions: Breast cancer survivors were less likely to meet physical activity guidelines compared to women without cancer. Demographic and socioeconomic disparities may exist among breast cancer survivors and women without cancer meeting physical activity guidelines., Impact: Targeted interventions may be necessary to address low physical activity participation among breast cancer survivors.

Background: Our systematic review aimed to critically evaluate empirical literature describing the association of muscle-strengthening exercise (MSE) with recurrence and/or mortality among breast cancer survivors., Methods: We included English-language empirical research studies examining the association between MSE and recurrence and/or mortality among females diagnosed with breast cancer. Seven databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL) were searched in September 2023. Quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results are summarized descriptively., Results: Five sources were identified. MSE measurement differed in relation to the description of the MSE (i.e., muscle-strengthening vs. strength training), examples of activities (e.g., sit-ups or push-ups vs. calisthenics vs. circuit training), and exercise frequency (i.e., days vs. times/week). Findings offer provisional evidence that some MSE may lower the hazards of recurrence and mortality. This association may vary by race, weight status, and menopausal status., Conclusions: In summary, limited available evidence suggests that MSE may lower the hazards of recurrence and mortality. More consistent measurement and analyses would help generate findings that are more readily comparable and applicable to inform clinical practice. Further research is needed to improve understanding of the strength and differences of these associations among underserved and underrepresented women., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: A recent trial showed that postmenopausal women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative, lymph node-positive (1-3 nodes) breast cancer with a 21-gene recurrence score of ≤ 25 could safely omit chemotherapy. However, there are limited data on population-level long-term outcomes associated with omitting chemotherapy among diverse women seen in real-world practice., Methods: We adapted an established, validated simulation model to generate the joint distributions of population-level characteristics of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer in the U.S. Input parameters were derived from cancer registry, meta-analyses, and clinical trial data. The effects of omitting chemotherapy on 10-year distant recurrence-free survival, life-years, and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) were modeled for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. QALYs were discounted at 3%. Results were evaluated for subgroups stratified by race and ethnicity. Sensitivity analyses included testing results across a range of inputs. The model was validated using the published RxPONDER trial data., Results: In premenopausal women, the 10-year distant recurrence-free survival rates were 85.3% with chemo-endocrine and 80.1% with endocrine therapy. The estimated life-years and QALYs gained with chemotherapy in premenopausal women were 2.1 and 0.6, respectively. There was no chemotherapy benefit in postmenopausal women. There was no variation in the absolute benefit of chemotherapy across racial or ethnic subgroups. However, there were differences in distant recurrence-free survival rates, life-years, and QALYs across groups. Sensitivity analysis showed similar results. The model closely replicated the RxPONDER trial., Conclusions: Modeled population-level outcomes show a small chemotherapy benefit in premenopausal women, but no benefit among postmenopausal women. Simulation modeling provides a useful tool to extend trial data and evaluate population-level outcomes., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known., Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies., Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses., Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women., Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women., Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Purpose: We reviewed existing personalized, web-based, interactive decision-making tools available to guide breast cancer treatment and survivorship care decisions in clinical settings., Methods: The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched PubMed and related databases for interactive web-based decision-making tools developed to support breast cancer treatment and survivorship care from 2013 to 2023. Information on each tool's purpose, target population, data sources, individual and contextual characteristics, outcomes, validation, and usability testing were extracted. We completed a quality assessment for each tool using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard (IPDAS) instrument., Results: We found 54 tools providing personalized breast cancer outcomes (e.g., recurrence) and treatment recommendations (e.g., chemotherapy) based on individual clinical (e.g., stage), genomic (e.g., 21-gene-recurrence score), behavioral (e.g., smoking), and contextual (e.g., insurance) characteristics. Forty-five tools were validated, and nine had undergone usability testing. However, validation and usability testing included mostly White, educated, and/or insured individuals. The average quality assessment score of the tools was 16 (range: 6-46; potential maximum: 63)., Conclusions: There was wide variation in the characteristics, quality, validity, and usability of the tools. Future studies should consider diverse populations for tool development and testing., Implications for Cancer Survivors: There are tools available to support personalized breast cancer treatment and survivorship care decisions in clinical settings. It is important for both cancer survivors and physicians to carefully consider the quality, validity, and usability of these tools before using them to guide care decisions., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools., Highlights: There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support for this study was provided entirely by the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health (MD000022) and the NIH Distinguished Scholars Program. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting data, writing, and publishing the report. The opinions and comments expressed in this article belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the US government, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, or the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The study funders had no role in the design of the study; collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; writing of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years old., Objective: To use microsimulation modeling to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of screening women aged 75, 80, and 85 years based on their individual risk factors (family history, breast density, prior biopsy) and comorbidity level to support SDM in clinical practice., Design, Setting, and Participants: We adapted two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models to evaluate the remaining lifetime benefits and harms of screening U.S. women born in 1940, at decision ages 75, 80, and 85 years considering their individual risk factors and comorbidity levels. Results were summarized for average- and higher-risk women (defined as having breast cancer family history, heterogeneously dense breasts, and no prior biopsy, 5% of the population)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Remaining lifetime breast cancers detected, deaths (breast cancer/other causes), false positives, and overdiagnoses for average- and higher-risk women by age and comorbidity level for screening (one or five screens) vs. no screening per 1000 women., Results: Compared to stopping, one additional screen at 75 years old resulted in six and eight more breast cancers detected (10% overdiagnoses), one and two fewer breast cancer deaths, and 52 and 59 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk women without comorbidities, respectively. Five additional screens over 10 years led to 23 and 31 additional breast cancer cases (29-31% overdiagnoses), four and 15 breast cancer deaths avoided, and 238 and 268 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk screened women without comorbidities, respectively. Screening women at older ages (80 and 85 years old) and high comorbidity levels led to fewer breast cancer deaths and a higher percentage of overdiagnoses., Conclusions: Simulation models show that continuing screening in women ≥ 75 years old results in fewer breast cancer deaths but more false positive tests and overdiagnoses. Together, clinicians and 75 + women may use model output to weigh the benefits and harms of continued screening., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Importance: Breast cancer mortality in the US declined between 1975 and 2019. The association of changes in metastatic breast cancer treatment with improved breast cancer mortality is unclear., Objective: To simulate the relative associations of breast cancer screening, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer with improved breast cancer mortality., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using aggregated observational and clinical trial data on the dissemination and effects of screening and treatment, 4 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models simulated US breast cancer mortality rates. Death due to breast cancer, overall and by estrogen receptor and ERBB2 (formerly HER2) status, among women aged 30 to 79 years in the US from 1975 to 2019 was simulated., Exposures: Screening mammography, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer., Main Outcomes and Measures: Model-estimated age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rate associated with screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment relative to the absence of these exposures was assessed, as was model-estimated median survival after breast cancer metastatic recurrence., Results: The breast cancer mortality rate in the US (age adjusted) was 48/100 000 women in 1975 and 27/100 000 women in 2019. In 2019, the combination of screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment was associated with a 58% reduction (model range, 55%-61%) in breast cancer mortality. Of this reduction, 29% (model range, 19%-33%) was associated with treatment of metastatic breast cancer, 47% (model range, 35%-60%) with treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and 25% (model range, 21%-33%) with mammography screening. Based on simulations, the greatest change in survival after metastatic recurrence occurred between 2000 and 2019, from 1.9 years (model range, 1.0-2.7 years) to 3.2 years (model range, 2.0-4.9 years). Median survival for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2-positive breast cancer improved by 2.5 years (model range, 2.0-3.4 years), whereas median survival for ER-/ERBB2- breast cancer improved by 0.5 years (model range, 0.3-0.8 years)., Conclusions and Relevance: According to 4 simulation models, breast cancer screening and treatment in 2019 were associated with a 58% reduction in US breast cancer mortality compared with interventions in 1975. Simulations suggested that treatment for stage I to III breast cancer was associated with approximately 47% of the mortality reduction, whereas treatment for metastatic breast cancer was associated with 29% of the reduction and screening with 25% of the reduction.

Purpose: Structural racism could contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in cancer mortality via its broad effects on housing, economic opportunities, and health care. However, there has been limited focus on incorporating structural racism into simulation models designed to identify practice and policy strategies to support health equity. We reviewed studies evaluating structural racism and cancer mortality disparities to highlight opportunities, challenges, and future directions to capture this broad concept in simulation modeling research., Methods: We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review Extension guidelines. Articles published between 2018 and 2023 were searched including terms related to race, ethnicity, cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, and structural racism. We included studies evaluating the effects of structural racism on racial and ethnic disparities in cancer mortality in the United States., Results: A total of 8345 articles were identified, and 183 articles were included. Studies used different measures, data sources, and methods. For example, in 20 studies, racial residential segregation, one component of structural racism, was measured by indices of dissimilarity, concentration at the extremes, redlining, or isolation. Data sources included cancer registries, claims, or institutional data linked to area-level metrics from the US census or historical mortgage data. Segregation was associated with worse survival. Nine studies were location specific, and the segregation measures were developed for Black, Hispanic, and White residents., Conclusions: A range of measures and data sources are available to capture the effects of structural racism. We provide a set of recommendations for best practices for modelers to consider when incorporating the effects of structural racism into simulation models., (Published by Oxford University Press 2023.)

Background: Populations of African American or Black women have persistently higher breast cancer mortality than the overall US population, despite having slightly lower age-adjusted incidence., Methods: Three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation teams modeled cancer mortality disparities between Black female populations and the overall US population. Model inputs used racial group-specific data from clinical trials, national registries, nationally representative surveys, and observational studies. Analyses began with cancer mortality in the overall population and sequentially replaced parameters for Black populations to quantify the percentage of modeled breast cancer morality disparities attributable to differences in demographics, incidence, access to screening and treatment, and variation in tumor biology and response to therapy., Results: Results were similar across the 3 models. In 2019, racial differences in incidence and competing mortality accounted for a net ‒1% of mortality disparities, while tumor subtype and stage distributions accounted for a mean of 20% (range across models = 13%-24%), and screening accounted for a mean of 3% (range = 3%-4%) of the modeled mortality disparities. Treatment parameters accounted for the majority of modeled mortality disparities: mean = 17% (range = 16%-19%) for treatment initiation and mean = 61% (range = 57%-63%) for real-world effectiveness., Conclusion: Our model results suggest that changes in policies that target improvements in treatment access could increase breast cancer equity. The findings also highlight that efforts must extend beyond policies targeting equity in treatment initiation to include high-quality treatment completion. This research will facilitate future modeling to test the effects of different specific policy changes on mortality disparities., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Over the past 2 decades, population simulation modeling has evolved as an effective public health tool for surveillance of cancer trends and estimation of the impact of screening and treatment strategies on incidence and mortality, including documentation of persistent cancer inequities. The goal of this research was to provide a framework to support the next generation of cancer population simulation models to identify leverage points in the cancer control continuum to accelerate achievement of equity in cancer care for minoritized populations. In our framework, systemic racism is conceptualized as the root cause of inequity and an upstream influence acting on subsequent downstream events, which ultimately exert physiological effects on cancer incidence and mortality and competing comorbidities. To date, most simulation models investigating racial inequity have used individual-level race variables. Individual-level race is a proxy for exposure to systemic racism, not a biological construct. However, single-level race variables are suboptimal proxies for the multilevel systems, policies, and practices that perpetuate inequity. We recommend that future models designed to capture relationships between systemic racism and cancer outcomes replace or extend single-level race variables with multilevel measures that capture structural, interpersonal, and internalized racism. Models should investigate actionable levers, such as changes in health care, education, and economic structures and policies to increase equity and reductions in health-care-based interpersonal racism. This integrated approach could support novel research approaches, make explicit the effects of different structures and policies, highlight data gaps in interactions between model components mirroring how factors act in the real world, inform how we collect data to model cancer equity, and generate results that could inform policy., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Recent studies, including a meta-analysis of 88 trials, have shown higher than expected rates of recurrence and death in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. These new findings suggest a need to re-evaluate the use of risk-reducing medication to avoid invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death in high-risk women., Methods: We adapted an established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model to evaluate the lifetime benefits and harms of risk-reducing medication in women with a ≥ 3% 5-year risk of developing breast cancer according to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk calculator. Model input parameters were derived from meta-analyses, clinical trials, and large observational data. We evaluated the effects of 5 years of risk-reducing medication (tamoxifen/aromatase inhibitors) with annual screening mammography ± magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with no screening, MRI, or risk-reducing medication. The modeled outcomes included invasive breast cancer, breast cancer death, side effects, false positives, and overdiagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses for individual risk factors such as age, family history, and prior biopsy., Results: Risk-reducing tamoxifen with annual screening (± MRI) decreased the risk of invasive breast cancer by 40% and breast cancer death by 57%, compared with no tamoxifen or screening. This is equivalent to an absolute reduction of 95 invasive breast cancers, and 42 breast cancer deaths per 1,000 high-risk women. However, these drugs are associated with side effects. For example, tamoxifen could increase the number of endometrial cancers up to 11 per 1,000 high-risk women. Benefits and harms varied by individual characteristics., Conclusion: The addition of risk-reducing medication to screening could further decrease the risk of breast cancer death. Clinical guidelines for high-risk women should consider integrating shared decision making for risk-reducing medication and screening on the basis of individual risk factors.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of a web-based, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-informed breast cancer education and decision support tool on intentions for risk-reducing medication and breast MRI among high-risk women. Women with ≥ 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk (N = 995) were randomized to (1) control or (2) the PMT-informed intervention. Six weeks post-intervention, 924 (93% retention) self-reported PMT constructs and behavioral intentions. Bootstrapped mediations evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on behavioral intentions and the mediating role of PMT constructs. There was no direct intervention effect on intentions for risk-reducing medication or MRI (p's ≥ 0.12). There were significant indirect effects on risk-reducing medication intentions via perceived risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, and on MRI intentions via perceived risk and response efficacy (p's ≤ 0.04). The PMT-informed intervention effected behavioral intentions via perceived breast cancer risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy. Future research should extend these findings from intentions to behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029286 (date of registration: January 24, 2017)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Lung cancer mortality is reduced via low-dose computed tomography screening and treatment of early-stage disease. Evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in the lung screening setting can further reduce mortality. We report the results of a cessation trial from the National Cancer Institute's Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination collaboration., Methods: Eligible patients (n = 818) aged 50-80 years were randomly assigned (May 2017-January 2021) to the intensive vs minimal arms (8 vs 3 phone sessions plus 8 vs 2 weeks of nicotine patches, respectively). Bio-verified (primary) and self-reported 7-day abstinence rates were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months post random assignment. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the effects of study arm. All statistical tests were 2-sided., Results: Participants reported 48.0 (SD = 17.2) pack-years, and 51.6% were not ready to quit in less than 30 days. Self-reported 3-month quit rates were statistically significantly higher in the intensive vs minimal arm (14.3% vs 7.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26 to 3.18). Bio-verified abstinence was lower but with similar relative differences between arms (9.1% vs 3.9%; OR = 2.70, 95% CI = 1.44 to 5.08). Compared with the minimal arm, the intensive arm was more effective among those with greater nicotine dependence (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 1.55 to 7.76), normal screening results (OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.32 to 5.03), high engagement in counseling (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.50 to 6.14), and patch use (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.39 to 5.68). Abstinence rates did not differ statistically significantly between arms at 6 months (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.68 to 2.11) or 12 months (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.42)., Conclusions: Delivering intensive telephone counseling and nicotine replacement with lung screening is an effective strategy to increase short-term smoking cessation. Methods to maintain short-term effects are needed. Even with modest quit rates, integrating cessation treatment into lung screening programs may have a large impact on tobacco-related mortality., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: There are limited data on the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening settings. We conducted an economic analysis embedded in a national randomized trial of 2 telephone counseling cessation interventions., Methods: We used a societal perspective to compare the short-term cost per 6-month bio-verified quit and long-term cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Trial data were used to micro-cost intervention delivery, and the data were extended to a lifetime horizon using an established Cancer Intervention Surveillance and Modeling Network lung cancer model. We modeled the impact of screening accompanied by 8 weeks vs 3 weeks of telephone counseling (plus nicotine replacement) vs screening alone based on 2021 screening eligibility. Lifetime downstream costs (2021 dollars) and effects (life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) saved were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested the effects of varying quit rates and costs; all analyses assumed nonrelapse after quitting., Results: The costs for delivery of the 8-week vs 3-week protocol were $380.23 vs $144.93 per person, and quit rates were 7.14% vs 5.96%, respectively. The least costly strategy was a 3-week counseling approach. An 8-week (vs 3-week) counseling approach increased costs but gained QALYs for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4029 per QALY. Screening alone cost more and saved fewer QALYs than either counseling strategy. Conclusions were robust in sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Telephone-based cessation interventions with nicotine replacement are considered cost-effective in the lung screening setting. Integrating smoking cessation interventions with lung screening programs has the potential to maximize long-term health benefits at reasonable costs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

The increasing attention on personalized breast cancer care has resulted in an explosion of new interactive, tailored, web-based clinical decision tools for guiding treatment decisions in clinical practice. The goal of this study was to review, compare, and discuss the clinical implications of current tools, and highlight future directions for tools aiming to improve personalized breast cancer care. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify web-based decision tools addressing breast cancer treatment decisions. There was a total of 17 articles associated with 21 unique tools supporting decisions related to surgery, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, bisphosphonates, HER2-targeted therapy, and chemotherapy. The quality of the tools was assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument. Overall, the tools considered clinical (e.g., age) and tumor characteristics (e.g., grade) to provide personalized outcomes (e.g., survival) associated with various treatment options. Fewer tools provided the adverse effects of the selected treatment. Only one tool was field-tested with patients, and none were tested with healthcare providers. Future studies need to assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, as well as the effects of personalized web-based decision tools on communication and decision making from the patient and clinician perspectives., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Jinani Jayasekera, Maya Larbi, Amy Zhao, and Kristen Miller have nothing to disclose. Suzanne O'Neill has received research funding from Pfizer., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Extending endocrine therapy from 5 to 10 years is recommended for women with invasive estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. We evaluated the benefits and harms of the five additional years of therapy., Methods: An established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) model used a lifetime horizon with national and clinical trial data on treatment efficacy and adverse events and other-cause mortality among multiple birth cohorts of U.S. women ages 25-79 newly diagnosed with ER+, non-metastatic breast cancer. We assumed 100% use of therapy. Outcomes included life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and breast cancer mortality. Results were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested a 15-year time horizon and alternative assumptions., Results: Extending tamoxifen therapy duration among women ages 25-49 reduced the lifetime probability of breast cancer death from 11.9% to 9.3% (absolute difference 2.6%). This translates to a gain of 0.77 LYs (281 days)/woman (undiscounted). Adverse events reduce this gain to 0.44 QALYs and after discounting, gains are 0.20 QALYs (73 days)/woman. Extended aromatase inhibitor therapy in women 50-79 had small absolute benefits and gains were offset by adverse events (loss of 0.06 discounted QALYs). There were greater gains with extended endocrine therapy for women with node-positive versus negative cancers, but only women ages 25-49 and 50-59 had a net QALY gain. All gains were reduced with less than 100% treatment completion., Conclusion: The extension of endocrine therapy from 5 to 10 years modestly improved lifetime breast cancer outcomes, but in some women, treatment-related adverse events may outweigh benefits., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Breast density increases breast cancer risk and decreases mammographic detection. We evaluated a personalized web-based intervention designed to improve breast cancer risk communication between women and their providers. Materials and Methods: This was a secondary outcome analysis of an online randomized trial. Women aged 40-69 years were randomized, February 2017-May 2018, to a control ( n  = 503) versus intervention website ( n  = 492). The intervention website included information about breast density, personalized breast cancer risk, chemoprevention, and magnetic resonance imaging. Participants self-reported communication about density with providers (yes/no) at 6 weeks and 12 months. We used logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to evaluate the association of study arm with density communication. In secondary analyses, we tested if the intervention was associated with indicators of patient activation (breast cancer worry, perceived risk, or health care use). Results: Women (mean age 62 years) in the intervention versus control arm were 2.39 times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-4.18) more likely to report density communication at 6 weeks; this effect persisted at 12 months (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.25-2.35). At 6 weeks, this effect was only significant among women who reported (OR = 3.23, 95% CI = 1.24-8.40) versus did not report any previous density discussions (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.83-3.26). A quarter of women in each arm never had a density conversation at any time during the study. Conclusions: Despite providing personalized density and risk information, the intervention did not promote density discussions between women and their providers who had not had them previously. This intervention is unlikely to be used clinically to motivate density conversations in women who have not had them before. Clinical trial registration number NCT03029286.

Purpose: There is a need for industry-independent decision tools that integrate clinicopathologic features, comorbidities, and genomic information for women with node-negative, invasive, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (early-stage) breast cancer., Methods: We adapted an extant Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation model to estimate the 10-year risk of distant recurrence, breast cancer-specific mortality, other-cause mortality, and life-years gained with chemoendocrine versus endocrine therapy. We simulated outcomes for 1,512 unique patient subgroups based on all possible combinations of age, tumor size, grade, and comorbidity level; simulations were performed with and without 21-gene recurrence scores (RSs). Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, large US cohort studies, registry, and claims data. External validation was performed by comparing results to observed rates in two independent sources. We highlight results for one scenario where treatment choice may be uncertain., Results: Chemoendocrine versus endocrine therapy in a 65-69-year-old woman with a small (≤ 2 cm), intermediate-grade tumor, and mild comorbidities provides a 1.3% absolute reduction in 10-year distant recurrence risk, with 0.23 life-years gained. With these tumor features, a woman like this will have a 28% probability of having an RS 16-20, 18% RS 21-25, and 11% RS 26+. If testing is done, and her RS is 16-20, chemoendocrine therapy reduces 10-year distant recurrence risk to 1%, with 0.20 life-years gained, a similar result as without testing. The absolute benefits would increase to 4.8%-5.5% if the RS was 26+. The model closely reproduced observed rates in both independent data sets., Conclusion: Our validated clinical decision tool is flexible, readily adaptable to include new therapies, and can support discussions about genomic testing and early breast cancer treatment., Competing Interests: Joseph A. SparanoStock and Other Ownership Interests: MetastatConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, Merrimack, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Cardinal Health, GlaxoSmithKline, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Epic Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, BMSiSpeakers' Bureau: Eisai, CertaraResearch Funding: Prescient Therapeutics, Deciphera, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Merrimack, Radius Health, Olema PharmaceuticalsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Roche/Genentech, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Rhenium Medical Suzanne O'NeillResearch Funding: Pfizer Claudine IsaacsHonoraria: Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi/Aventis, EisaiSpeakers' Bureau: GenentechResearch Funding: Tesaro, Merck, Seattle GeneticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: McGraw Hill Publishing, Wolters Kluwer (UpToDate author), Elsevier (book editor) Allison W. KurianResearch Funding: Myriad GeneticsOther Relationship: Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, InVitae, GenentechNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches., Methods: We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results: Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence., Conclusion: All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Since 2000, the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling teams have developed and applied microsimulation and statistical models of breast cancer. Here, we illustrate the use of collaborative breast cancer multilevel systems modeling in CISNET to demonstrate the flexibility of systems modeling to address important clinical and policy-relevant questions. Challenges and opportunities of future systems modeling are also summarized. The 6 CISNET breast cancer models embody the key features of systems modeling by incorporating numerous data sources and reflecting tumor, person, and health system factors that change over time and interact to affect the burden of breast cancer. Multidisciplinary modeling teams have explored alternative representations of breast cancer to reveal insights into breast cancer natural history, including the role of overdiagnosis and race differences in tumor characteristics. The models have been used to compare strategies for improving the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening based on personal risk factors, including age, breast density, polygenic risk, and history of Down syndrome or a history of childhood cancer. The models have also provided evidence to support the delivery of care by simulating outcomes following clinical decisions about breast cancer treatment and estimating the relative impact of screening and treatment on the United States population. The insights provided by the CISNET breast cancer multilevel modeling efforts have informed policy and clinical guidelines. The 20 years of CISNET modeling experience has highlighted opportunities and challenges to expanding the impact of systems modeling. Moving forward, CISNET research will continue to use systems modeling to address cancer control issues, including modeling structural inequities affecting racial disparities in the burden of breast cancer. Future work will also leverage the lessons from team science, expand resource sharing, and foster the careers of early stage modeling scientists to ensure the sustainability of these efforts., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: Women with early-stage, ER + breast cancer are recommend to receive genomic profiling tests, such as the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) test, to guide treatment decisions. We examined test- and treatment-related information discussed and the associations between RS categories and aspects of communication during patient-oncologist clinical encounters., Methods: As part of a larger trial, clinical encounters (N = 46) were audiorecorded and coded for 1) RS- and treatment-related information, 2) shared decision making, 3) patient active participation, and 4) oncologist patient-centered communication. We examined differences by RS category using mixed models, adjusting for nesting within oncologist., Results: Patients with a high RS were more likely to receive a chemotherapy recommendation (p < .01), hear about the risks/side effects of chemotherapy (p < .01), and offer their preferences (p = .02) than those with intermediate or low RS. Elements of shared decision making increased with RS. Oncologist patient-centered communication (M = 4.09/5, SD = .25) and patient active participation (M = 3.5/4, SD = 1.0) were high across RS., Conclusion: Findings suggest that disease severity, rather than clinical uncertainty, impact treatment recommendations and shared decision making., Practice Implications: Oncologists adjust test- and treatment-related information and shared decision making by disease severity. This information provides a framework to inform decision making in complex cancer and genomics settings., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)