Search

Background: Late recurrence of breast cancer after 5 years accounts for about 50% of recurrences in hormone receptor (HR)-positive early breast cancer (EBC). TAILORx established non-inferiority of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) given for at least 5 years to chemotherapy plus ET (CET) in EBC and a 21-gene recurrence score (RS) of 11-25, although there was some chemotherapy benefit in women Methods: Eligibility criteria included women 18-75 years with HR-positive, HER2-negative, T1b-T2N0 EBC who agreed to have CT assigned or randomized based on the RS assay. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in the RS 11-25 group. The “primary analysis” refers to the original prespecified analysis for the primary IDFS endpoint (836 IDFS events at full information in the RS 11-25 group) after a median of 7.5 years. The “updated analysis” was performed after a median followup of 11.0 and 10.4 years in the randomized and overall populations, respectively. Results:10,253 eligible women enrolled between 4/7/06-10/6/10.The updated analysis includes substantially more events that the primary analysis, including IDFS events (1819 vs. 1210), distant recurrences (561 vs. 384), locoregional +/- distant recurrences (764 vs. 543), and deaths (910 vs. 499). The table provides 5 and 12-year event rates (and standard errors) for all arms, and comparisons of the randomized arms. The primary trial conclusions remain unchanged: ET was non-inferior to CET in the randomized group with a RS 11-25. Although recurrence occurred in < 10% by 12 years for a RS 0-25, late recurrence events beyond 5 years exceeded earlier recurrence. Non-recurrence events occurred in about 13% at 12 years (~1%/year), contributing substantially to the IDFS rates. For women Conclusions: The current updated analysis confirms findings from the original primary analysis that ET is non-inferior to CET in HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative EBC and a RS 11-25. As in the original primary analysis, the subgroup of women Citation Format: Joseph Sparano, Robert J. Gray, Della Makower, Kathy S. Albain, Daniel F. Hayes, Charles Geyer, Elizabeth Dees, Matthew P. Goetz, John A. Olson Jr, Tracy G. Lively, Sunil Badve, Thomas Saphner, Lynne I. Wagner, Timothy Whelan, Virginia Kaklamani, George Sledge. Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx): An Update Including 12-Year Event Rates [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-05.

Background: As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could impact accrual to optimization clinical trials and about the generalizability of future findings. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results: Forty-six physicians were approached from 3/31/21-11/5/21; 39 oncologists from different oncology practices across 17 states completed interviews, 7 either declined or did not respond to email requests. Physician characteristics were balanced: men vs. women (49% vs 51%) and community oncologist vs. academic oncologist (49% vs 51%); and time practicing as medical oncologist (31% 0-9 years; 33% 10-19 years; 36% 20+ years). All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists reported the need for treatment optimization, with one oncologist noting “historically, we’ve given way too much treatment to patients.” Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. They included quality of life improvement by reducing toxicity; reduction in financial toxicity; fertility preservation; ability to avoid chemotherapy; minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions; personalized treatment; opportunities to test novel therapies; and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. At the same time, there was hesitancy amongst some oncologists with this approach, “All my life I’ve worked to try to improve things and so I am not totally philosophically comfortable with the notion that I’m going to be happy with a result that says, we haven’t improved it but we can get by with less.” In addition, oncologists also identified accrual barriers, like tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors (e.g. disease characteristics, patient demographics, patient psychological state, patient preferences), prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support communication about and enrollment in optimization trials. Conclusions: While optimization clinical trials are generally accepted to be beneficial by oncologists, barriers impact their acceptance. Scientifically robust design and education to overcome barriers are needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy based on risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment. Citation Format: Gabrielle B. Rocque, Andrews Courtney, Rachel M. Frazier, Lawhon Valerie, Stacey A. Ingram, Mary Lou Smith, Lynne I. Wagner, Lisa Zubkoff, Nadine Tung, Lauren P. Wallner, Antonio C. Wolff. Oncologist-reported Barriers and Facilitators to enrolling patients in optimization trials that test less intense cancer treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-04.

PURPOSE: As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could affect accrual to optimization clinical trials and the generalizability of future findings. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders used a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. These included quality-of-life improvement by reducing toxicity, reduction in financial toxicity, fertility preservation, ability to avoid chemotherapy, minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions, personalized treatment, opportunities to test novel therapies, and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. Oncologists also identified accrual barriers, such as tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors, prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support enrollment in optimization trials. CONCLUSION: Although oncologists are generally willing to enroll patients on optimization clinical trials, barriers affect their acceptance. A scientific focus on overcoming these barriers is needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy on the basis of risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment.

Disparities in care, treatment-related toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 15-39 years) with cancer are under-addressed partly because of limited collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The AYA years include key developmental milestones distinct from younger and older patients, and cancer interrupts attainment of critical life goals. Lack of consensus on a standardized approach to assess HRQoL and treatment-related toxicity in AYA CCTs has limited the ability to improve patient outcomes. The National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Trials Network AYA PRO Task Force was assembled to reach consensus on a core set of PROs and foster its integration into AYA CCTs. Eight key considerations for selecting the core PRO AYA battery components were identified: relevance to AYAs; importance of constructs across the age continuum; prioritization of validated measures; availability of measures without licensing fees; availability in multiple languages; applicability to different cancer types and treatments; ability to measure different HRQoL domains and toxicities; and minimized burden on patients and sites. The Task Force used a modified Delphi approach to identify key components of the PRO battery. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Measurement System met all criteria and were selected to assess HRQoL and treatment toxicity, respectively. Investigators are rapidly incorporating the recommendations of the Task Force into AYA trials. Inclusion of a standardized assessment of HRQoL and treatment toxicities in AYA CCTs is a vital first step to develop interventions to improve health outcomes for AYAs diagnosed with cancer.

Fear of recurrence (FoR) is prevalent among breast cancer survivors (BCS) and may be exacerbated by avoidance coping. This study examined BCS with avoidance coping and their engagement in a FoR eHealth intervention (FoRtitude).BCS (N = 196) with elevated FoR participated in FoRtitude. Patient-reported measures assessed avoidance coping with FoR and baseline emotional and behavioral health. Intervention engagement was measured quantitatively (e.g., website logins, telecoaching attendance) and qualitatively (i.e., telecoaching notes).38 BCS (19%) endorsed avoidance coping, which was associated with more severe post-traumatic anxiety-related symptoms and worse global mental health (ps .05), but not anxiety (p = .19), depression (p = .11), physical health (p = .12), alcohol consumption (p = .85), or physical activity (p = .39). Avoidance coping was not associated with engagement levels (ps .05) but did characterize engagement-related motivators and barriers.Avoidance coping was not a barrier to FoRtitude engagement. eHealth delivery is a promising modality for engaging survivors with avoidance coping in FoR interventions.

PURPOSE Distant metastases are present in 6% or more of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. In this context, locoregional therapy for the intact primary tumor has been hypothesized to improve overall survival (OS), but clinical trials have reported conflicting results. METHODS Women presenting with metastatic breast cancer and an intact primary tumor received systemic therapy for 4-8 months; if no disease progression occurred, they were randomly assigned to locoregional therapy for the primary site (surgery and radiotherapy per standards for nonmetastatic disease) or continuing sysmetic therapy. The primary end point was OS; locoregional control and quality of life were secondary end points. The trial design provided 85% power to detect a 19.3% absolute difference in the 3-year OS rate in randomly assigned patients. The stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare OS between arms. Cumulative incidence of locoregional progression was compared using Gray's test. Quality-of-life assessment used standard instruments. RESULTS Of 390 participants enrolled, 256 were randomly assigned: 131 to continued systemic therapy and 125 to early locoregional therapy. The 3-year OS was 67.9% without and 68.4% with early locoregional therapy (hazard ratio = 1.11; 90% CI, 0.82 to 1.52; P = .57). The median OS was 53.1 months (95% CI, 47.9 to not estimable) in the systemic therapy arm and 54.9 months (95% CI, 46.7 to not estimable) in the locoregional therapy arm. Locoregional progression was less frequent in those randomly assigned to locoregional therapy (3-year rate: 16.3% v 39.8%; P < .001). Quality-of-life measures were largely similar between arms. CONCLUSION Early locoregional therapy for the primary site did not improve survival in patients presenting with metastatic breast cancer. Although it was associated with improved locoregional control, this had no overall impact on quality of life.

Background: Understanding health-related quality of life (HRQOL), including side effects, is critical to guide supportive care during chemotherapy. The EA1131 trial demonstrated that Platinum (Plat) was unlikely to improve outcomes compared to capecitabine (Cape) in patients with stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) of basal subtype and ≥1 cm residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), supporting Cape as the continued standard of care. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were administered as a sub-study to understand HRQOL and symptoms from the patient’s perspective. Methods: EA1131 was amended in 9/2017 to add PRO endpoints and all patients enrolled after this amendment were eligible for the PRO sub-study. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (FBSI) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity Subscale (NtxS; Plat arm only) were administered at baseline (BL), cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), and following treatment at 6 and 15 months. Due to early trial termination, the PRO sub-study target accrual (n=362) was not reached. It was hypothesized that HRQOL, assessed by the FBSI-Treatment Side Effect (TSE) subscale (range 0-16, higher score = less side effects, better HRQOL), would indicate fewer post-treatment side effects at 6 and 15 months following Plat compared to Cape. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare FBSI-TSE subscale scores and total FBSI scores (range 0-64, higher score = better overall HRQOL) between arms at BL, C3D1, 6 months and 15 months. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare change in FBSI-TSE subscale scores and total FBSI scores from BL to C3D1 between arms. Change in NtxS scores (range 0-44, higher score = less neurotoxicity) from BL to C3D1 was evaluated with the paired t-test. Analyses were exploratory and p-values 1.5 points) in 27% of patients on Cape and 23% of patients on Plat (p-value 0.51). Mean total FBSI scores did not differ between arms at any time (BL: Cape 50.6, Plat 49.7; C3D1: Cape 48.1, Plat 48.0; 6 months: Cape 49.9, Plat 51.1; 15 months: Cape 53.3, Plat 50.3; all p > 0.05). Mean change in total FBSI scores from BL to C3D1 did not differ between arms (Cape -2.20, Plat -1.83, p = 0.75). Mean (standard deviation) NtxS scores for the Plat arm were 38 (6.3), 36.1 (7.8), 36 (7.1) and 34.5 (7.9) at BL, C3D1, 6 months and 15 months, respectively. Mean NtxS score decreased (indicating worsening neurotoxicity) from BL to C3D1 (p-value 0.006). Conclusions: Despite more frequent severe toxicity by CTCAE criteria for Plat than Cape, patient-reported side effects worsened during treatment with Cape but not Plat. Overall, changes in HRQOL were small for both arms and resolved after therapy. However approximately one-fourth of patients had clinically meaningful worsening side effects on both arms. PRO-assessed neurotoxicity increased in the Plat arm. This PRO sub-study demonstrates that PROs capture toxicities beyond CTCAE criteria and provides novel data about patients’ experience during adjuvant chemotherapy following NAC for TNBC. Citation Format: Karen L Smith, Fengmin Zhao, Ingrid A Mayer, Amye J Tevaarwerk, Sofia F Garcia, Carlos L Arteaga, William F Symmans, Ben H Park, Brian L Burnette, Della F Makower, Margaret Block, Kimberly A Morley, Chirag R Jani, Craig Mescher, Shabana J Dewani, Ursa Brown-Glaberman, Lisa E Flaum, Erica L Mayer, William M Sikov, Eve T Rodler, Angela M DeMichele, Joseph A Sparano, Antonio C Wolff, Kathy D Miller, Lynne I Wagner. Patient-reported outcomes in EA1131: A randomized phase III trial of platinum vs. capecitabine in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-02.

Enthusiasm for precision oncology may obscure the psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with the implementation of tumor genetic sequencing.Patients with advanced cancer undergoing tumor-only genetic sequencing in the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial were randomized to a web-based genetic education intervention or usual care. The primary outcomes were knowledge, anxiety, depression, and cancer-specific distress collected at baseline (T0), posteducation (T1) and after results (T2). Two-sided, 2-sample t tests and univariate and multivariable generalized linear models were used.Five hundred ninety-four patients (80% from NCI Community Oncology Research Program sites) were randomized to the web intervention (n = 293) or usual care (n = 301) before the receipt of results. Patients in the intervention arm had greater increases in knowledge (P for T1-T0 .0001; P for T2-T0 = .003), but there were no significant differences in distress outcomes. In unadjusted moderator analyses, there was a decrease in cancer-specific distress among women (T0-T1) in the intervention arm but not among men. Patients with lower health literacy in the intervention arm had greater increases in cancer-specific distress and less decline in general anxiety (T0-T1) and greater increases in depression (T0-T2) in comparison with those receiving usual care.Web-based genetic education before tumor-only sequencing results increases patient understanding and reduces distress in women. Refinements to the intervention could benefit low-literacy groups and men.

The Lee-Jones model posits that antecedent individual and interpersonal factors predicate the development of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) through cognitive and emotional processing, which further to behavioral, emotional, and/or physiological responses. We analyzed data from FoRtitude, a FCR intervention grounded in the Lee-Jones FCR model, to evaluate associations between FCR antecedents, resources (e.g., breast cancer self-efficacy, BCSE) and psychological and behavioral consequences.Women with breast cancer who completed treatment and reported clinically elevated levels of FCR were randomized into a 4-week online psychosocial intervention or contact control group. We assessed BCSE, FCR, and physical activity, anxiety and depression, or symptoms at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks. Separate structural equation models were constructed with both baseline data and change scores (baseline-8 weeks) to examine the pathways linking BCSE, FCR and: 1) physical activity; 2) anxiety and depression; and 3) symptoms (fatigue, sleep disturbance, cognitive concerns).At baseline, higher levels of BCSE were associated with lower levels of FCR. Higher FCR was associated with worse psychological effects and symptoms but not behavioral response. Change models revealed that an increase in BCSE was associated with a decrease in FCR at 8-week assessment, which was associated with reductions in psychological effects. A change in BCSE was also directly associated with reductions in psychological effects.Results support the Lee-Jones model as a foundation for FCR interventions among breast cancer survivors. Replicability among varied populations is needed to examine effects on behavioral outcomes of FCR such as health care utilization. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

PURPOSE The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on integrative approaches to managing pain in patients with cancer. METHODS The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 227 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Among adult patients, acupuncture should be recommended for aromatase inhibitor–related joint pain. Acupuncture or reflexology or acupressure may be recommended for general cancer pain or musculoskeletal pain. Hypnosis may be recommended to patients who experience procedural pain. Massage may be recommended to patients experiencing pain during palliative or hospice care. These recommendations are based on an intermediate level of evidence, benefit outweighing risk, and with moderate strength of recommendation. The quality of evidence for other mind-body interventions or natural products for pain is either low or inconclusive. There is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients. More research is needed to better characterize the role of integrative medicine interventions in the care of patients with cancer. Additional information is available at https://integrativeonc.org/practice-guidelines/guidelines and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

This study aimed to evaluate psychometric properties of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Cognitive Version 3 (FACT-Cog3). Scoring was compared when including then excluding four multitasking items that the scale authors added after validating the scale. This was intended to improve guidance about use of FACT-Cog3 in both clinical and non-clinical samples. Data from previous studies in people with and without cancer were supplemented with a new sample, for a total of 205 participants with and 110 participants without a history of cancer. Factors, reliability, and validity were examined in conjunction with other relevant measures. Exploratory factor analysis results supported a four-factor solution (i.e., perceived cognitive impairment [PCI], comments from others, perceived cognitive ability [PCA], and quality of life) for both versions of the scale in a clinical sample. In the non-clinical sample, factor analysis results suggested a four-factor solution for the 37-item scale but not the 33-item version, suggesting that the scale may perform differently in a non-clinical sample. High reliability and validity were found for both samples in the 33-item and 37-item versions of the scale. To gain a comprehensive understanding of perceived cognitive functioning it is recommended that the 37-item FACT-Cog3 scoring should be used in research and clinical practice. Most importantly, regardless of which scoring is used, it is essential that users clearly disclose which scoring method for the FACT-Cog3 has been selected and it is recommended that subscales are labelled accordingly (e.g., PCI18, PCA20, PCA7, PCA9).

Background Given excellent survival outcomes in breast cancer, there is interest in de‐escalating the amount of chemotherapy delivered to patients. This approach may be of even greater importance in the setting of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods This concurrent mixed methods study included (1) interviews with patients and patient advocates and (2) a cross‐sectional survey of women with breast cancer served by a charitable nonprofit organization. Questions evaluated interest in de‐escalation trial participation, perceived barriers/facilitators to participation, and language describing de‐escalation. Results Sixteen patient advocates and 24 patients were interviewed. Key barriers to de‐escalation included fear of recurrence, worry about decision regret, lack of clinical trial interest, and dislike for focus on less treatment. Facilitators included trust in physician recommendation, toxicity avoidance, monitoring for progression, perception of good prognosis, and impact on daily life. Participants reported that the COVID‐19 pandemic made them more likely to avoid chemotherapy if possible. Of 91 survey respondents, many (43%) patients would have been unwilling to participation in a de‐escalation clinical trial. The most commonly reported barrier to participation was fear of recurrence (85%). Few patients (19%) considered clinical trials themselves as a barrier to de‐escalation trial participation. The most popular terminology describing chemotherapy de‐escalation was “lowest effective chemotherapy dose” (53%); no patients preferred the term “de‐escalation.” Conclusions Fear of recurrence is a common concern among breast cancer survivors and patient advocates, contributing to resistance to de‐escalation clinical trial participation. Additional research is needed to understand how to engage patients in de‐escalation trials., Over 40% of patients would not be interested in participating in clinical trials testing de‐escalation, with the most common barriers being fear of recurrence. Common facilitators included toxicity avoidance, trust in the physician, and use of patient‐centric language to describe the trial.

BACKGROUND: Early discontinuation is a substantial barrier to the delivery of endocrine therapies (ETs) and may influence recurrence and survival. The authors investigated the association between early discontinuation of ET and social determinants of health, including insurance coverage and the neighborhood deprivation index (NDI), which was measured on the basis of patients' zip codes, in breast cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of a prospective randomized clinical trial (Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment), women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer who started ET within a year of study entry were included. Early discontinuation was calculated as stopping ET within 4 years of its start for reasons other than distant recurrence or death via Kaplan-Meier estimates. A Cox proportional hazards joint model was used to analyze the association between early discontinuation of ET and factors such as the study-entry insurance and NDI, with adjustments made for other variables. RESULTS: Of the included 9475 women (mean age, 55.6 years; White race, 84%), 58.0% had private insurance, whereas 11.7% had Medicare, 5.8% had Medicaid, 3.8% were self-pay, and 19.1% were treated at international sites. The early discontinuation rate was 12.3%. Compared with those with private insurance, patients with Medicaid (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.92) and self-pay patients (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.25-2.17) had higher early discontinuation. Participants with a first-quartile NDI (highest deprivation) had a higher probability of discontinuation than those with a fourth-quartile NDI (lowest deprivation; HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.62). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' insurance and zip code at study entry play roles in adherence to ET, with uninsured and underinsured patients having a high rate of treatment nonadherence. Early identification of patients at risk may improve adherence to therapy. LAY SUMMARY: In this retrospective analysis of 9475 women with breast cancer participating in a clinical trial (Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment), Medicaid and self-pay patients (compared with those with private insurance) and those in the highest quartile of neighborhood deprivation scores (compared with those in the lowest quartile) had a higher probability of early discontinuation of endocrine therapy. These social determinants of health assume larger importance with the expected increase in unemployment rates and loss of insurance coverage in the aftermath of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Early identification of patients at risk and enrollment in insurance optimization programs may improve the persistence of therapy.

BACKGROUND Approximately 66% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer will survive for at least 5 years and engaging patients in an active role to optimize their health will improve outcomes. Clinical guidelines recommend patients receive a comprehensive care plan (CP) when transitioning from active treatment to survivorship that includes support for ongoing symptoms and recommended healthy behaviors. Yet cancer care providers find this guideline difficult to implement due to the additional time and resources required. Future directions for survivorship care planning include enhancing information technology support for developing personalized CPs, using CPs to facilitate self-management, and assessing CPs in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE To develop an electronic tool for colorectal cancer follow-up care planning. METHODS Incorporating healthcare professional and patient stakeholder input is fundamental to the successful integration of any tool into the clinical workflow. Thus, we followed the Integrate, Design, Assess and Share (IDEAS) framework to adapt an existing application for stroke care planning (COMPASS-CP) to meet the needs of colorectal cancer survivors (COMPASS-CP CFC). Constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided our approach. We completed this work in three phases: (1) gathered qualitative feedback from stakeholders about the follow-up CP generation design and workflow; (2) adapted algorithms and resource data sources needed to generate a follow-up CP; and (3) optimized the usability of the adapted prototype of COMPASS-CP CFC. We also quantitatively measured usability (target average score of ≥70; range=0-100), acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. RESULTS In the first phase, healthcare professionals (n=7) and patients and caregivers (n=7) provided qualitative feedback on COMPASS-CP CFC that informed design elements such as selection, interpretation and clinical usefulness of patient-reported measures. In phase 2, we built a minimal viable product of COMPASS-CP CFC. This tool generated CPs based on needs identified by patient-completed measures (including validated patient-reported outcomes) and EHR data, which were then matched with resources by zip code and preference to support patients’ self-management. Elements of CFIR assessed revealed that most healthcare professionals believed the tool would serve patients’ needs and had advantages (e.g., providing local community resources). In phase 3, the average System Usability Score was above our target score for healthcare professionals (n=5; M=71.0, SD=15.2) and patients (n=5; M=95.5, SD=2.1). Participants also reported high levels of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Additional CFIR-informed feedback such as desired format for training will inform future studies. CONCLUSIONS Data collected in this study supports initial usability of COMPASS-CP CFC and will inform next steps toward implementation in clinical care. COMPASS-CP CFC has the potential to streamline the implementation of personalized cancer follow-up care planning to enable systematic access to resources that will support self-management. Future research is needed to test the impact of COMPASS-CP CFC on health outcomes.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of insurance and neighborhood SES (nSES) on chemotherapy completion and overall mortality among participants in breast cancer clinical trials. The data sources for this study were two adjuvant breast cancer trials (ECOG E1199 and E5103) collectively including 9790 women. Insurance status at trial registration was categorized into private, government (Medicaid, Medicare, and other government type insurance), and self‐pay. An Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ) nSES index was calculated using residential zip codes linked to county level data on occupation, income, poverty, wealth, education, and crowding. Logistic regression and Cox Proportional Hazard models estimated odds ratios (OR) for chemotherapy treatment completion and hazard ratios (HR) for mortality, respectively, for insurance status and nSES. The models adjusted for: race, age, tumor size, nodal status, hormone receptor status, and primary surgery. The majority of patients had private insurance at trial registration: E1199: 85.6% (4154/4854) and E5103: 82.4% (3987/4836); median SES index was 53.8 (range: 41.8‐66.8) and 54.1 (range: 44.5‐66.1), respectively. Patients with government insurance were less likely to complete chemotherapy treatment (E1199 OR (95%CI): 0.73 (0.57‐0.94); E5103 0.76 (0.64‐0.91)) and had an increased risk of death (E1199 HR (95%CI): 1.44 (1.22‐1.70); E5103 1.29 (1.06‐1.58)) compared to the privately insured patients. There was no association between nSES and chemotherapy completion or overall mortality. Patients with government insurance at trial registration appeared to face barriers in chemotherapy completion and had a higher overall mortality compared to their privately insured counterparts.

Content: CART QUOL is a study that has recently opened in the University Hospital of Wales Cardiff and was designed and set up by the Chief Investigator Emma Williams. Emma is a nurse and has been working within haematology since 2009. The study will be used to inform a dissertation project though will be done within her capacity of a research manager of the Clinical Research Group. Cellular therapies and regenerative medicine are a research theme of specialist interest within the South Wales Bone Marrow Transplant programme and a joint initiative between them and Wales Blood Service to establish a translational research platform in which to bring novel therapies to clinics. As we have become more focused on establishing outcomes in a patient centred way, this project aligns to values based healthcare with its aim to collect real world data and experiences. The aim of this study is to build on previous published data looking at the quality of life of patients who undergo CART therapy and follows on from a study published by Mariarz et al in BJH 2019. Two quality of life tools will be used, one FACTLYM as used within the Mariarz study, specifically for Lymphoma patients and the EQ5DL tool which is widely established in clinical trials and recommended by health assessment bodies (EQ5DL 2019).The CART team looked at the tools used in the previous study and decided that the EQ5D was easier to navigate and the terminology was easier for our patients to understand. This study will align with Standard of care visits and patients will be consented after their initial CART counselling visit and prior to the infusion of cells. The rest of the quality of life forms will be collected at day 30, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Our CART service aims to treat 12-15 patients per year with CART therapy and it has been estimated that accrual into the trial would be 8-10 patients per year. There is an invisibility of nursing research due to a number of factors Seidlecki (2016) and this abstract aims to highlight the need for projects such as this despite Covid being an added obstacle. The REC authority and all involved with this study could see its relevance, moreso at this difficult time due to heightened anxieties of patients. Emma has progressed from research nurse to research manager to PI and most recently CI and hopes this work will encourage others to take a lead on nursing projects which will in turn add breadth to the research portfolio. This project was initially designed as a pilot study and for a single centre however it has potential to become a multi centred study and grow and benefit the haematology community and our patients further. The author is also keen to share her experiences of the R&D process and REC submission and how projects can be turned around quite quickly as this one if thought through and collaboration has been made between all parties.

Summary Background Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib, a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), has shown promising efficacy in phase 2 trials and might improve outcomes compared with VRd. We aimed to assess whether the KRd regimen is superior to the VRd regimen in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients who were not being considered for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (the ENDURANCE trial; E1A11), we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASCT. Participants were recruited from 272 community oncology practices or academic medical centres in the USA. Key inclusion criteria were the absence of high-risk multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of permuted blocks to receive induction therapy with either the VRd regimen or the KRd regimen for 36 weeks. Patients who completed induction therapy were then randomly assigned (1:1) a second time to either indefinite maintenance or 2 years of maintenance with lenalidomide. Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for the second randomisation. Allocation was not masked to investigators or patients. For 12 cycles of 3 weeks, patients in the VRd group received 1·3 mg/m2 of bortezomib subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1–8, and day 1 and day 8 of cycles nine to twelve, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1–14, and 20 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For nine cycles of 4 weeks, patients in the KRd group received 36 mg/m2 of intravenous carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1–21, and 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and overall survival in the maintenance phase. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01863550. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up of the maintenance phase is ongoing. Findings Between Dec 6, 2013, and Feb 6, 2019, 1087 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the VRd regimen (n=542) or the KRd regimen (n=545). At a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 5–23), at a second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34·6 months (95% CI 28·8–37·8) in the KRd group and 34·4 months (30·1–not estimable) in the VRd group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·83–1·31; p=0·74). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related non-haematological adverse events included fatigue (34 [6%] of 527 patients in the VRd group vs 29 [6%] of 526 in the KRd group), hyperglycaemia (23 [4%] vs 34 [6%]), diarrhoea (23 [5%] vs 16 [3%]), peripheral neuropathy (44 [8%] vs four [ Interpretation The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and had more toxicity. The VRd triplet regimen remains the standard of care for induction therapy for patients with standard-risk and intermediate-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and is a suitable treatment backbone for the development of combinations of four drugs. Funding US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Amgen.

Background Studies have reported racial disparities in access to and use of multiple myeloma (MM) treatments between African American (AA) and White patients. Although AA patients demonstrate longer disease‐specific survival, this has not uniformly translated into improved survival over time. The association between race and treatment patterns and survival outcomes was analyzed using data from the Connect MM Registry. Methods The Connect MM Registry is a large US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients who received first‐line (1L) stem cell transplantation (SCT) or who did not receive SCT (non‐SCT or non–stem cell transplantation [NSCT]) were grouped by raceEffects of race and transplantation status on the use of triplet treatment were estimated using logistic regression. Results Treatment patterns in 1L (types and duration of induction, posttransplantation maintenance) were similar between AA and White patients. SCT rates in 1L (32% vs 36%) and triplet treatment use (AA: 44% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients; and White: 48% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients) during first induction were similar. No significant effect of race or transplantation status on 1L triplet treatment use was observed. Race was not found to be associated with survival outcomes among patients who underwent NSCT; however, AA patients who received SCT had significantly longer overall survival compared with White patients who underwent SCT (not reached vs 88.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35‐0.89 [P = .0141]). Conclusions AA and White patients were found to have similar treatment patterns in the Connect MM Registry, suggesting that both groups had equal access to health care. In this real‐world setting, AA patients received standard‐of‐care treatment, which might have contributed to better MM‐specific survival compared with White patients., Real‐world data from the mostly community‐based Connect MM Registry demonstrated that African American patients have multiple myeloma treatment patterns that are similar to those of White patients. Similar (progression‐free survival) and better (overall survival) survival outcomes are reported in African American individuals.

Background Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, particularly in breast cancer where risk of recurrence is low. Little is known about physician perspectives on delivering less intense treatment for patients who are not well represented in clinical trials. Methods Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists explored their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer, with a focus on breast cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. Facilitators of comfort included the sentiment that “biology is biology” (such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered), the strength of the evidence, inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations, and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included potential harm over the patient’s lifetime, concerns about groups that had minimal participants, application to younger patients, and extending findings to diverse populations. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy was desired. Conclusions The majority (92%) of physicians reported that they would de-implement treatment for patients poorly represented in clinical trials testing less treatment, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations. Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer. Trial registration NCT03248258

Background: Biomarkers with robust analytical and clinical validity can help optimize therapy decisions within clinical trials for patients with breast cancer, particularly if some data on clinical utility also exist. However, little is known about how physicians enrolling in clinical trials view them. Physician comfort with the integral use of conventional and investigational biomarkers for reducing chemotherapy intensity within clinical trials is explored in this study. Method: A convenience sample of academic and community oncologists from across the United States were invited to participate in qualitative interviews that explored their perspectives on the use of biomarkers for the de-escalation of chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Purposive sampling techniques were used to identify participants, ensuring even distribution of gender, work setting, and time practicing medical oncology. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed by two independent coders to identify major themes and exemplary quotes in NVivo. A framework for understanding how providers conceptualize biomarkers was created. Results: There was a total of 39 physicians with a median age of 50; 51% of physicians were academic and 49% were community-based. 44% of oncologists have been in practice for less than 15 years, and 36% and 20% of oncologists were in practice for 15-30 years and over 30 years, respectively. The model on physician level of comfort for biomarker use consisted of 1) standard of care biomarkers, 2) standard biomarkers in newer contexts, and 3) experimental biomarkers with inclusion of additional related subthemes. There was a shared theme among physicians that historical experience with a biomarker made them more comfortable in de-escalation of chemotherapy. The greatest level of physician comfort with biomarker for de-escalation of chemotherapy came with biomarkers used in standard of care (e.g., MammaPrint, Oncotype DX). Themes related to these biomarkers included: strong level of evidence, agreement with NCCN guidelines, and widespread use in the community. For example, one physician stated, “for me to use a prognostic biomarker … typically it’s going to have to at least be within the NCCN guidelines or out there”. Secondly, physicians expressed reasonable confidence with some reluctance in the use of standard of care biomarkers in contexts that differ from where they were initially tested (i.e., use of biomarker in patients with different features or disease biology). These themes included the use of biomarkers in specific subtypes of cancer and when there is less supportive evidence. One physician commented, “It’s just hard to analyze and really know whether [pathCR in ER+ setting] actually holds like it does for other tumor biologies”. There was more hesitation and least comfort with experimental biomarkers (e.g., tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, circulating tumor DNA). For experimental biomarkers, physicians were primarily concerned with the quality and quantity of evidence supporting their use. Prospective trials were favored over retrospective; however, physicians were accepting if the retrospective study included a large sample, other biomarkers were used in conjunction, or multiple studies confirmed the results. Other themes that emerged regarding experimental biomarkers were their testing in diverse populations and reproducibility. Physicians expressed contentment with experimental biomarkers that were proven in “multiple big enough studies”, were “reproducible and not subjective”, and “demonstrate utility in the patient population that’s relevant”. Conclusion: Biomarkers can be divided into 3 successive levels: 1) standard of care biomarkers, 2) standard biomarkers in newer contexts, and 3) experimental biomarkers. Level of comfort concerning the use of biomarkers for de-escalation of chemotherapy is related to level of evidence for experimental biomarkers. Citation Format: Noon Eltoum, Halle thannickal, Nicole L. Henderson, Lynne I. Wagner, Lauren P. Wallner, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. The Hierarchy of Biomarkers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-01-04.

IMPORTANCE: Racial disparities in survival outcomes among Black women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer have been reported. However, the association between individual-level and neighborhood-level social determinants of health on such disparities has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between race and clinical outcomes (ie, relapse-free interval and overall survival) adjusting for individual insurance coverage and neighborhood deprivation index (NDI), measured using zip code of residence, in women with breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a post hoc analysis of 9719 women with breast cancer in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment, a randomized clinical trial conducted from April 7, 2006, to October 6, 2010. All participants received a diagnosis of hormone receptor–positive, ERBB2-negative, axillary node–negative breast cancer. The present data analysis was conducted from April 1 to October 22, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A multivariate model was developed to evaluate the association between race and relapse-free interval and overall survival adjusting for insurance and NDI level at study entry, early discontinuation of endocrine therapy 4 years after initiation, and clinicopathologic characteristics of cancer. Median follow-up for clinical outcomes was 96 months. RESULTS: A total of 9719 women (4.2% [n = 405] Asian; 7.1% [n = 693] Black; 84.3% [n = 8189] White; 4.4% [n = 403] others/not specified) were included; 9.1% of included women [n = 889] were Hispanic or Latino. Median (SD) age was 56 (9.2) years. In multivariate models, Black race compared with White race was associated with statistically significant shorter relapse-free interval (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.05-1.84; P = .02) and overall survival (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.99; P = .009), adjusting for insurance and NDI level at study entry and other factors. Although uninsured status was not associated with clinical outcomes, patients with Medicare (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.68; P = .04) and Medicaid (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01-2.05; P = .05) had shorter overall survival compared with those with private insurance. Participants living in neighborhoods in the highest NDI quartile experienced shorter overall survival compared with those in the lowest quartile (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.77; P = .04), regardless of self-identified race. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial suggest that Black women with breast cancer have significantly shorter relapse-free interval and overall survival compared with White women. Early discontinuation of endocrine therapy, clinicopathologic characteristics, insurance coverage, and NDI do not fully explain the observed disparity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310180

The objective of this study is to examine the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) and baseline allostatic load (AL) and clinical trial endpoints in patients enrolled in the E1A11 therapeutic trial in multiple myeloma (MM). Study endpoints were symptom burden (pain, fatigue, and bother) at baseline and 5.5 months, non-completion of induction therapy, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariable logistic and Cox regression examined associations between nSES, AL and patient outcomes. A 1-unit increase in baseline AL was associated with greater odds of high fatigue at baseline (adjusted OR [95% CI] = 1.21 [1.08-1.36]) and a worse OS (adjusted hazard ratio, [95% CI] = 1.21 [1.06-1.37]). High nSES was associated with worse baseline bother (middle OR = 4.22 [1.11-16.09] and high 4.49 [1.16-17.43]) compared to low nSES. There was no association between AL or nSES and symptom burden at 5.5 months, non-completion of induction therapy or PFS. Additionally, there was no association between nSES and OS. AL may have utility as a predictive marker for OS among patients with MM and may allow individualization of treatment. Future studies should standardize and validate AL patients with MM.

Key Points Question Is there a short-term reduction in health-related quality of life associated with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ? Findings In this cohort study of 244 women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ, a short-term reduction in quality of life associated with MRI was revealed, primarily owing to fear before the test and fear and physical discomfort during the test. Meaning Understanding the potential reduction in quality of life associated with MRI in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ may allow development of targeted interventions to improve the patient’s experience., Importance The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pretreatment planning of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Understanding changes in short-term health-related quality of life associated with breast MRI would allow for a more complete comparative effectiveness assessment. Objective To assess whether there are changes in patient-reported quality of life associated with breast MRI among women diagnosed with DCIS. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was a substudy of a nonrandomized clinical trial conducted at 75 participating US institutions from March 2015 to April 2016. Women recently diagnosed with unilateral DCIS who were eligible for wide local excision and had a diagnostic mammogram within 3 months of study registration were included. A total of 355 women met the eligibility criteria and underwent the study MRI. Data analysis was performed from June 3, 2020, to July 1, 2021. Exposures Participants underwent bilateral breast MRI within 30 days of study registration and before surgery. Information on patient-reported testing burden for breast MRI was collected after MRI and before surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome of this substudy was the patient-reported testing burden of breast MRI, measured by the Testing Morbidities Index (TMI) summated scale score. The TMI is a 7-item instrument that evaluates the temporary changes in quality of life associated with imaging before, during, and after the test (0 represents the worst possible, 100 the hypothetical ideal test experience). Results Of the 355 women who met the eligibility criteria, 244 (69%) completed both questionnaires and were included in this analysis. The median age was 59 years (range, 34-85 years). The mean MRI TMI summated scale score was 85.9 (95% CI, 84.6-87.3). Of the 244 women, 142 (58%) experienced at least some fear and anxiety before the examination, and 120 women (49%) experienced fear and anxiety during the examination. A total of 156 women (64%) experienced pain or discomfort during the examination. In multivariable analyses, greater test-related burden was associated with higher levels of cancer worry (regression coefficient, −2.75; SE, 0.94; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, a clinically meaningful breast MRI testing burden among women with DCIS was revealed that was significantly associated with cancer worry. Understanding the potential quality-of-life reduction associated with MRI, especially when used in combination with mammography, may allow development of targeted interventions to improve the patient experience., This cohort study examines short-term patient-reported changes in health-related quality of life in women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing magnetic resonance imaging for treatment planning.

Background TAILORx (Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment) prospectively assessed fatigue and endocrine symptoms among women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and a midrange risk of recurrence who were randomized to endocrine therapy (E) or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (CT+E). Methods Participants completed the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Fatigue Short Form, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Symptoms at the baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Linear regression was used to model outcomes on baseline symptoms, treatment, and other factors. Results Participants (n = 458) in both treatment arms reported greater fatigue and endocrine symptoms at early follow-up in comparison with the baseline. The magnitude of change in fatigue was significantly greater for the CT+E arm than the E arm at 3 and 6 months but not at 12, 24, or 36 months. The CT+E arm reported significantly greater changes in endocrine symptoms from the baseline to 3 months in comparison with the E arm; change scores were not significantly different at later time points. Endocrine symptom trajectories by treatment differed by menopausal status, with the effect larger and increasing for postmenopausal patients. Conclusions Adjuvant CT+E was associated with greater increases in fatigue and endocrine symptoms at early time points in comparison with E. These differences lessened over time, and this demonstrated early chemotherapy effects more than long-term ones. Treatment arm differences in endocrine symptoms were more evident in postmenopausal patients. Lay summary Participants in TAILORx (Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment) with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and an intermediate risk of recurrence were randomly assigned to endocrine or chemoendocrine therapy. Four hundred fifty-eight women reported fatigue and endocrine symptoms at the baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Both groups reported greater symptoms at early follow-up versus the baseline. Increases in fatigue were greater for the chemoendocrine group than the endocrine group at 3 and 6 months but not later. The chemoendocrine group reported greater changes in endocrine symptoms in comparison with the endocrine group at 3 months but not later.

BACKGROUND: E5103 was a study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab. It was a negative trial for the end points of invasive disease–free survival and overall survival. The current work examines the tolerability of bevacizumab and other medication exposures with respect to clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Adverse events (AEs) collected from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were summarized to form an AE profile at each treatment cycle. All-grade and high-grade events were separately analyzed. The change in the AE profile over the treatment cycle was delineated as distinct AE trajectory clusters. AE-related and any-reason early treatment discontinuations were treated as clinical outcome measures. PROs were measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast + Lymphedema. The relationships between the AE trajectory and early treatment discontinuation as well as PROs were analyzed. RESULTS: More than half of all AEs (57.5%) were low-grade. A cluster of patients with broad and mixed AE (all-grade) trajectory grades was significantly associated with any-reason early treatment discontinuation (odds ratio [OR], 2.87; P = .01) as well as AE-related discontinuation (OR, 4.14; P = .001). This cluster had the highest count of all-grade AEs per cycle in comparison with other clusters. Another cluster of patients with primary neuropathic AEs in their trajectories had poorer physical well-being in comparison with a trajectory of no or few AEs (P < .01). A high-grade AE trajectory did not predict discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: A sustained and cumulative burden of across-the-board toxicities, which were not necessarily all recognized as high-grade AEs, contributed to early treatment discontinuation. Patients with neuropathic all-grade AEs may require additional attention for preventing deterioration in their physical well-being.

Background: Studies have shown an association between insurance status, socioeconomic status (SES) and disparities in clinical outcomes among breast cancer patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate insurance status and SES with respect to protocol treatment completion and survival among participants in two large randomized adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials. Methods: The data sources for this study were the ECOG-ACRIN (EA) clinical trials E1199 and E5103. An Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ) SES index was calculated using zip codes from the trial patients’ residence and were linked to county level data on occupation, income, poverty, wealth, education and crowding. Insurance status at randomization was categorized into private, government (Medicaid, Medicare, and other government insurance), and self-pay. Logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate odds ratios [OR] and hazard ratios [HR] for the association between insurance type (government relative to private and self-pay relative to private) with protocol treatment completion (yes vs. no) and with overall survival respectively. The estimates reported here were adjusted for SES, race, age, tumor size, nodal status, hormone receptor status, and primary surgery at randomization. Preliminary analyses of individual government insurance types with outcome showed no difference in results versus using one combined ‘government’ insurance type category. Results: The study sample included 4954 patients from E1199 and 4836 patients from E5103. The majority of patients in E1199 and E5103 had private insurance 83.8% (4154/4954) and 82% (3987/4836) respectively. The median(range) SES index was 53.8 (41.8-66.8) for E1199 and 54.1(44.5-66.1) for E5013. Patients with government type insurance were less likely to complete treatment per protocol (OR (.95CI): E1199 0.73 (0.57-0.94), E5103 0.76 (0.64-0.91)) and had increased association with death (HR (.95CI):E1199 1.44 (1.22-1.70), E5103 1.29 (1.06-1.58)) compared to those patients with private insurance. Conversely, there was no association in completing treatment per protocol (E1199 1.03(1.01-1.06), E5103 1.14 (0.67-1.95)) or survival (E1199 1.00 (0.98-1.01), E5013 1.17(0.63-2.20)) between those patients who self-paid for care relative to those who were privately insured. There was no association between SES index and completing treatment per protocol (E1199 1.03(1.01-1.06), E5103 1.01 (0.99-1.03)) or survival (E1199 1.00(0.98-1.01), E5103 0.98(0.96-1.00)). Conclusions: In these two clinical trials, patients with government type insurance appeared to face barriers in trial treatment completion and had a lower survival compared to their privately insured counterparts. Future studies are encouraged to focus on patient and institution related variables that might be contributing to these insurance-based disparities in outcomes. Citation Format: Samilia Obeng-Gyasi, Anne O'Neil, Fengmin Zhao, Sheetal M Kircher, Timsina R Lava, Lynne I Wagner, Kathy D Miller, Joseph A Sparano, George W Sledge, Ruth C Carlos. Impact of insurance and socioeconomic status on clinical outcomes in therapeutic clinical trials for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD10-09.

Median overall survival (OS) has improved for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but prognosis varies depending on baseline patient characteristics. Current models use data from selected clinical trial populations, which prevent application to patients in an unselected community setting that reflects routine clinical practice. Using data from the Connect® MM Registry, a large, US, multicentre, prospective observational cohort study (Cohort 1: 2009-2011; Cohort 2: 2012-2016) of 3011 patients with NDMM, we identified prognostic variables for OS via the multivariable analysis of baseline patient characteristics in Cohort 1 (n = 1493) and developed a tool to examine individual outcomes. Factors associated with OS (n = 1450 treated patients; P < 0·05) were age, del(17p), triplet therapy use, EQ-5D mobility, International Staging System stage, solitary plasmacytoma, history of diabetes, platelet count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and serum creatinine, which were used to create survival matrices for 3- and 5-year OS. The model was internally and externally validated using Connect MM Cohort 2 (Harrell's concordance index, 0·698), MM-015 (0·649), and the phase 3 FIRST (0·647) clinical trials. This novel prognostic tool may help inform outcomes for NDMM in the era of triplet therapy use with novel agents.

Background Oncology practice can be enhanced by the integration of the assessment of patient-reported symptoms and concerns into the electronic health record (EHR) and clinical workflows. Methods Adult oncology outpatients (n = 6825) received 38,422 invitations to complete assessments through the EHR patient portal. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System computer adaptive tests were administered to assess fatigue, pain interference, physical function, depression, and anxiety. Checklists identified psychosocial, nutritional, and informational needs. In real time, assessment results were populated in the EHR, and clinicians were notified of elevated symptoms and needs. Results In all, 3521 patients (51.6%) completed 8162 assessments; approximately 55% of the responding patients completed 2 or more within 32 months. Fatigue, pain, anxiety, and depression scores were comparable to those of the general population (approximately 5% of assessments triggered clinical alerts across those domains); mean scores indicated a lower level of physical function (with severe scores prompting alerts in nearly 5% of assessments). More than half of assessments triggered an alert based on patient endorsement of supportive care needs, with the majority of those being nutritional (41.82% of assessments). Patient endorsement of supportive care needs was associated with significantly higher anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain interference scores and lower physical function scores. Patients who triggered clinical alerts tended to be younger and more recently diagnosed, to have greater comorbidities, and to be a racial/ethnic minority. Patients who triggered clinical alerts had more health care service encounters in the ensuing month. Conclusions EHR integration facilitated the assessment and reporting of patient-reported symptoms and needs within routine oncology outpatient care.

Background and PurposeCancer survivors continue to cope with significant stressors after completing treatment. The Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) is frequently used to measure coping; however, its factor structure remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the best factor conceptualization of the Brief COPE for use among breast cancer survivors.MethodsBreast cancer survivors (N = 1,127) completed the Brief COPE. We conducted confirmatory factor analyses comparing several a priori models based on research in cancer-relevant populations.ResultsOf the eight models examined, the 14-factor model of the Brief COPE showed the best fit.ConclusionsDespite efforts to simplify the structure of the Brief COPE, our results suggest coping among breast cancer survivors is best assessed using Carver's (1997) original 14-factor conceptualization.