Search

Stephanie B Wheeler,1,2 Megan C Roberts,1 Diane Bloom,1 Katherine E Reeder-Hayes,2,3 Maya Espada,1 Jeffrey Peppercorn,4 Carol E Golin,5,6 Jo Anne Earp2,5 1Department of Health Policy and Management, 2Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 4Division of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 5Department of Health Behavior, 6Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Purpose: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) can reduce the risk of recurrence among females with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Overall, initiation and adherence to ET are suboptimal, though reasons are not well described. The study’s objective was to better understand ET decision making, prescribing, and patient management from oncology providers’ perspectives.Methods: Using purposive sampling, we recruited oncology providers who saw five or more breast cancer patients per week (n=20). We conducted 30–45-minute telephone interviews, using a semistructured guide to elicit perspectives on ET use. We used thematic content analysis to systematically identify categories of meaning and double-coded transcripts using Atlas.ti.Results: Providers recommend ET to all eligible patients except those with contraindications or other risk factors. Providers base their ET prescribing decisions on the patient’s menopausal status, side effects, and comorbidities. ET is typically discussed multiple times: at the onset of breast cancer treatment and in more detail after other treatment completion. Providers felt that the associated recurrence risk reduction is the most compelling argument for patients during ET decision making. While providers rarely perceived noninitiation as a problem, nonadherence was prevalent, often due to unresolvable side effects.Conclusion: From the clinicians’ perspectives, side effects from ET are the dominant factor in nonadherence. Efforts to improve adherence should focus on strategies to minimize side effects and ensure clinicians and patients are well informed regarding optimal side effect management. This finding has important implications for novel endocrine regimens that offer improved outcomes through longer duration or more intensive therapy. Keywords: breast cancer, endocrine therapy, oncology, oncologist, qualitative interviews

Purpose: Long-term outcomes of patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remain undefined, and prognostic predictors represent an unmet need., Methods: In the ATEMPT phase II trial, patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned 3:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year or paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH). Coprimary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities between arms and to evaluate invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1. Correlative analyses included the HER2DX genomic tool, multiomic evaluations of HER2 heterogeneity, and predictors of thrombocytopenia., Results: After a median follow-up of 5.8 years, 11 iDFS events were observed in the T-DM1 arm, consistent with a 5-year iDFS of 97.0% (95% CI, 95.2 to 98.7). At 5 years, the recurrence-free interval (RFI) was 98.3% (95% CI, 97.0 to 99.7), the overall survival was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), and the breast cancer-specific survival was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100). Comparable iDFS was observed with T-DM1 irrespective of tumor size, hormone receptor status, centrally determined HER2 immunohistochemical score, and receipt of T-DM1 for more or less than 6 months. Although ATEMPT was not powered for this end point, the 5-year iDFS in the TH arm was 91.1%. Among patients with sufficient tissue for HER2DX testing (n = 187), 5-year outcomes significantly differed according to HER2DX risk score, with better RFI (98.1% v 81.8%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.10, P = .01) and iDFS (96.3% v 81.8%, HR, 0.20, P = .047) among patients with HER2DX low-risk versus high-risk tumors, respectively., Conclusion: Adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year leads to outstanding long-term outcomes for patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. A high HER2DX risk score predicted a higher risk of recurrence in ATEMPT.

Background: Frailty is a dynamic syndrome characterized by reduced physiological reserve to maintain homeostasis. Prospective studies have reported frailty worsening in women with breast cancer during chemotherapy, with improvements following treatment. We evaluated whether the Faurot frailty index, a validated claims-based frailty measure, could identify changes in frailty during chemotherapy treatment and identified predictors of trajectory patterns., Methods: We included women (65+ years) with stage I-III breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy in the SEER-Medicare database (2003-2019). We estimated the Faurot frailty index (range: 0-1; higher scores indicate greater frailty) at chemotherapy initiation, 4 months postinitiation, and 10 months postinitiation. Changes in frailty were compared to a matched noncancer comparator cohort. We identified patterns of frailty trajectories during the year following chemotherapy initiation using K-means clustering., Results: Twenty-one thousand five hundred and ninety-nine women initiated adjuvant chemotherapy. Mean claims-based frailty increased from 0.037 at initiation to 0.055 4 months postchemotherapy initiation and fell to 0.049 10 months postinitiation. Noncancer comparators experienced a small increase in claims-based frailty over time (0.055-0.062). We identified 6 trajectory patterns: a robust group (78%), 2 resilient groups (16%), and 3 nonresilient groups (6%). Black women and women with claims for home hospital beds, wheelchairs, and Parkinson's disease were more likely to experience nonresilient trajectories., Conclusions: We observed changes in a claims-based frailty index during chemotherapy that are consistent with prior studies using clinical measures of frailty and identified predictors of nonresilient frailty trajectories. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of using claims-based frailty indices to assess changes in frailty during cancer treatment., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Although the need to reduce the impact of financial toxicity among patients with cancer is widely acknowledged, few interventions have been developed to address this issue. We tested a novel, multiphase, patient-centered financial navigation (FN) intervention at a large academic medical center., Methods: We developed a financial toxicity screening tool consisting of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure plus several additional items based on patient feedback. After systematizing the screening process, 50 patients from the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital were enrolled in the FN intervention following a positive screen for financial distress (COST score <23). The FN intervention involved one-on-one consultations with a trained financial navigator and included an initial comprehensive intake appointment to determine patient eligibility for financial assistance and follow-up appointments to discuss paperwork and application(s) status. We assessed preliminary intervention effectiveness (preintervention and postintervention COST scores) and implementation (ie, fidelity, uptake, acceptability)., Results: All 50 patients assessed for study eligibility screened positive for financial distress. A total of 46 patients completed both the preintervention and postintervention COST instrument and other measures. Postintervention mean COST scores improved from 6.4 at baseline to 13.3 post-FN (P<.0001), indicating a significant decrease in perceived financial toxicity. Fidelity to the intervention was high and 96% of participants received financial assistance., Conclusions: A patient-centered FN intervention fully integrated into an existing care coordination model can help to decrease the burden of cancer-related financial toxicity among patients with cancer experiencing financial distress. Further studies are needed to test FN interventions in various oncology settings and among targeted populations.

Background: Frailty is a dynamic aging-related syndrome, but measuring frailty transitions is challenging. The Faurot frailty index is a validated Medicare claims-based frailty proxy based on demographic and billing information. We evaluated whether 3-year changes in the Faurot frailty index were consistent with concurrent changes in the frailty phenotype in a cohort of older adults., Methods: We used longitudinal data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with Medicare claims linkage (2010-2018). We identified older adults (66+ years) in the 2011 and 2015 NHATS cohorts with at least 1 year of Medicare fee-for-service continuous enrollment (N = 6 951). We described annual changes in mean claims-based frailty for up to 3 years, based on concurrent transitions in the frailty phenotype., Results: At baseline, 32% were robust, 48% prefrail, and 19% frail based on the frailty phenotype. Mean claims-based frailty for older adults who were robust at baseline and worsened to frail increased over 3 years (0.09-0.25). Similarly, those who worsened from prefrail to frail experienced an increase in mean claims-based frailty (0.14-0.26). Improvements in the frailty phenotype did not correspond to decreases in claims-based frailty. Older adults whose frailty phenotype improved over time had a lower baseline claims-based frailty score than those who experienced stable or worsening frailty., Conclusions: Older adults who experienced a frailty phenotype worsening over 3 years experienced concurrent increases in the Faurot frailty index. Our results suggest that claims data may be used to identify clinically meaningful worsening in frailty., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.)

Background: Alpelisib is an oral α-specific class I PI3K inhibitor approved in combination with fulvestrant for the treatment of PIK3CA-mutated hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer. The tolerability of this drug with the oral chemotherapy capecitabine is unknown., Patients and Methods: This phase I trial evaluated the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of alpelisib (250 mg or 300 mg daily for 3-weeks) with capecitabine (1000 mg/m 2 twice daily for 2-weeks followed by a 1-week rest period) in patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer, regardless of PIK3CA mutation status., Results: Eighteen patients were treated with alpelisib-capecitabine. Half of the patients had HR+ breast cancer, and 16 had prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease. The MTD of alpelisib was 250 mg daily in combination with capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 twice daily. DLTs included hyperglycemia, QTc prolongation, fatigue, and chest pain. The most common grade 3 adverse event (AE) was hyperglycemia (28%). No grade 4 AEs were observed. Three patients discontinued therapy due to an AE. One-third of patients required dose reduction of both alpelisib and capecitabine. Four patients experienced a partial response and 8 patients experienced stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 9.7 months (95% CI 2.8-13.5 months) and median overall survival was 18.2 months (95% CI 7.2-35.2 months). Twelve patients had PIK3CA mutation testing completed, of these 2 had known or likely deleterious PIK3CA mutation., Conclusion: This study provides safety data for an oral combination therapy of alpelisib-capecitabine and defines tolerable doses for further study., Competing Interests: Disclosure YA reports consulting income from Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. C.K.A. reports research funding provided by PUMA, Lilly, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Nektar, Tesaro, G1-Therapeutics, ZION, Novartis, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Elucida, Caris, Incyclix; consulting for Genentech, Eisai, IPSEN, Seattle Genetics, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Immunomedics, Elucida, Athenex, Roche; royalties from UpToDate, Jones and Bartlett. L.A.C. reports research funding from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Veracyte, Nanostring. C.M.P. is an equity stockholder and board of director member of BioClassifer LLC and is listed as inventor on patent applications for the Breast PAM50 assay. E.C.D. reports consulting income from Sanofi, research funding from Novartis, Genentech, Bayer, Pfizer, and Merck and a family member who received past consulting income from Novartis. L.A.C reports research funding from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Merck, Nanostring, Novartis, SeaGen, and Veracyte. P.K.M. is a full-time employee and equity stockholder with Veracyte., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) recognize days spent at home (home time) vs in a hospital or nursing facility as an important factor in treatment decision making. No study has adequately described home time among older adults with AML., Objective: To describe home time among older adults with AML (aged ≥66 years) and compare home time between 2 common treatments: anthracycline-based chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents (HMAs)., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort of adults aged 66 years or older with a new diagnosis of AML from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database in 2004 to 2016 was identified. Individuals were stratified into anthracycline-based therapy, HMAs, or chemotherapy, not otherwise specified (NOS) using claims., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was home time, quantified by subtracting the total number of person-days spent in hospitals and nursing facilities from the number of person-days survived and dividing by total person-days. A weighted multinomial regression model with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate adjusted home time was used., Results: The cohort included 7946 patients with AML: 2824 (35.5%) received anthracyclines, 2542 (32.0%) HMAs, and 2580 (32.5%) were classified as chemotherapy, NOS. Median (IQR) survival was 11.0 (5.0-27.0) months for those receiving anthracyclines and 8.0 (3.0-17.0) months for those receiving HMAs. Adjusted home time for all patients in the first year was 52.4%. Home time was highest among patients receiving HMAs (60.8%) followed by those receiving anthracyclines (51.9%). Despite having a shorter median survival, patients receiving HMAs had more total days at home and 33 more days at home in the first year on average than patients receiving anthracyclines (222 vs 189)., Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective study of older adults with AML using SEER-Medicare data and propensity score weighting suggests that the additional survival afforded by receiving anthracycline-based therapy was entirely offset by admission to the hospital or to nursing facilities.

Purpose: Screening history influences stage at detection, but regular preventive care may also influence breast tumor diagnostic characteristics. Few studies have evaluated healthcare utilization (both screening and primary care) in racially diverse screening-eligible populations., Methods: This analysis included 2,058 women age 45-74 (49% Black) from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based cohort of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2008 and 2013. Screening history (threshold 0.5 mammograms per year) and pre-diagnostic healthcare utilization (i.e. regular care, based on responses to "During the past ten years, who did you usually see when you were sick or needed advice about your health?") were assessed as binary exposures. The relationship between healthcare utilization and tumor characteristics were evaluated overall and race-stratified., Results: Among those lacking screening, Black participants had larger tumors (5 + cm) (frequency 19.6% vs 11.5%, relative frequency difference (RFD) = 8.1%, 95% CI 2.8-13.5), but race differences were attenuated among screening-adherent participants (10.2% vs 7.0%, RFD = 3.2%, 0.2-6.2). Similar trends were observed for tumor stage and mode of detection (mammogram vs lump). Among all participants, those lacking both screening and regular care had larger tumors (21% vs 8%, RR = 2.51, 1.76-3.56) and advanced (3B +) stage (19% vs 6%, RR = 3.15, 2.15-4.63) compared to the referent category (screening-adherent and regular care). Under-use of regular care and screening was more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of North Carolina., Conclusions: Access to regular care is an important safeguard for earlier detection. Our data suggest that health equity interventions should prioritize both primary care and screening., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Frailty is an aging-related syndrome of reduced physiological reserve to maintain homeostasis. The Faurot frailty index has been validated as a Medicare claims-based proxy for predicting frailty using billing information from a user-specified ascertainment window., Objectives: We assessed the validity of the Faurot frailty index as a predictor of the frailty phenotype and 1-year mortality using varying frailty ascertainment windows., Research Design: We identified older adults (66+ y) in Round 5 (2015) of the National Health and Aging Trends Study with Medicare claims linkage. Gold standard frailty was assessed using the frailty phenotype. We calculated the Faurot frailty index using 3, 6, 8, and 12 months of claims prior to the survey or all-available lookback. Model performance for each window in predicting the frailty phenotype was assessed by quantifying calibration and discrimination. Predictive performance for 1-year mortality was assessed by estimating risk differences across claims-based frailty strata., Results: Among 4253 older adults, the 6 and 8-month windows had the best frailty phenotype calibration (calibration slopes: 0.88 and 0.87). All-available lookback had the best discrimination (C-statistic=0.780), but poor calibration. Mortality associations were strongest using a 3-month window and monotonically decreased with longer windows. Subgroup analyses revealed worse performance in Black and Hispanic individuals than counterparts., Conclusions: The optimal ascertainment window for the Faurot frailty index may depend on the clinical context, and researchers should consider tradeoffs between discrimination, calibration, and mortality. Sensitivity analyses using different durations can enhance the robustness of inferences. Research is needed to improve prediction across racial and ethnic groups., Competing Interests: T.S. receives salary support from the Center for Pharmacoepidemiology (current members: GlaxoSmithKline, UCB BioSciences, Takeda, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, As tellas, and Sarepta) and from a generous contribution from Dr. Nancy A. Dreyer to the Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. T.S. does not accept personal compensation of any kind from any pharmaceutical company. He owns stock in Novartis, Roche, and Novo Nordisk. J.L.L. receives research support from Roche to the University of North Carolina; her spouse was formerly employed by GlaxoSmithKline and previously owned stock in the company. K.R-H. receives research support unrelated to this work from Pfizer Global Medical Foundation to the University of North Carolina. D.H.K. received personal fees from Alosa Health and VillageMD for unrelated work. The remaining authors, J.K.E., K.R.F., and E.D.D., declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Racial disparities in outcomes of breast cancer in the United States have widened over more than 3 decades, driven by complex biologic and social factors. In this review, we summarize the biological and social narratives that have shaped breast cancer disparities research across different scientific disciplines in the past, explore the underappreciated but crucial ways in which these 2 strands of the breast cancer story are interwoven, and present 5 key strategies for creating transformative interdisciplinary research to achieve equity in breast cancer treatment and outcomes., Design: We first review the key differences in tumor biology in the United States between patients racialized as Black versus White, including the overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer and differences in tumor histologic and molecular features by race for hormone-sensitive disease. We then summarize key social factors at the interpersonal, institutional, and social structural levels that drive inequitable treatment. Next, we explore how biologic and social determinants are interwoven and interactive, including historical and contemporary structural factors that shape the overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer among Black Americans, racial differences in tumor microenvironment, and the complex interplay of biologic and social drivers of difference in outcomes of hormone receptor positive disease, including utilization and effectiveness of endocrine therapies and the role of obesity. Finally, we present 5 principles to increase the impact and productivity of breast cancer equity research., Results: We find that social and biologic drivers of breast cancer disparities are often cyclical and are found at all levels of scientific investigation from cells to society. To break the cycle and effect change, we must acknowledge and measure the role of structural racism in breast cancer outcomes; frame biologic, psychosocial, and access factors as interwoven via mechanisms of cumulative stress, inflammation, and immune modulation; take responsibility for the impact of representativeness (or the lack thereof) in genomic and decision modeling on the ability to accurately predict the outcomes of Black patients; create research that incorporates the perspectives of people of color from inception to implementation; and rigorously evaluate innovations in equitable cancer care delivery and health policies., Conclusions: Innovative, cross-disciplinary research across the biologic and social sciences is crucial to understanding and eliminating disparities in breast cancer outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: K.R.-H. and S.B.W. receive grants to their institution from the Pfizer Global Medical Foundation. K.R.-H.'s University Cancer Research Fund through University of North Carolina Lineberger supports this work. M.L.R. reports receiving consulting fees from Concert Genetics for work unrelated to the submitted research. M.L.R. is supported by the American Association for Cancer Research in Partnership with Victoria's Secret and Pelotonia Career Development Award (22-20-73-ROBE) and a diversity supplement from the National Cancer Institute (3U01CA254832-03S1). Y.A. is a consultant for Exact Sciences and AstraZeneca. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations., Methods: We conducted surveys ( n  = 78) and in-depth interviews ( n  = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality., Results: Results from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources., Conclusions: Staff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices., Competing Interests: SW, KR, and DR receive grant funding paid to their institution from Pfizer Foundation. LS receives grant funding paid to her institution from AstraZeneca/Merk. CS is employed by Flatiron Health. MG serves in a consulting/advisory role for Sensal Health. DR receives research funding from National Comprehensive Cancer Network and receives royalties from Oxford University Press book sales of The Group: Seven Widowed Fathers Reimagine Life and Up To Date chapters in the palliative care section. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Petermann, Biddell, Planey, Spees, Rosenstein, Manning, Gellin, Padilla, Samuel-Ryals, Birken, Reeder-Hayes, Deal, Cabarrus, Bell, Strom, Young, King, Leutner, Vestal and Wheeler.)

Background: Hormone receptor-positive (HR +) breast cancer is the most common type of breast cancer in the USA but has excellent long-term outcomes in recent decades, in part due to effective oral endocrine therapy (ET). ET medications are typically prescribed for 5 to 10 years, depending on the risk of recurrence, and must be taken daily. One limiting factor to ET efficacy is nonadherence, with high-risk groups for nonadherence including younger women and Black women., Methods: The Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) trial A191901 is an ongoing, four-arm (text message reminder (TMR), motivational interviewing (MI), TMR plus MI, or enhanced usual care) randomized clinical trial that tests the efficacy and effect of two interventions (TMR and/or MI) on improved ET adherence, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and resource use requirements among HR + breast cancer survivors. Participants are randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to the four arms. With an assumed loss to follow-up of approximately 11%, we plan to recruit 1180 participants. Randomization is stratified based on age and race to ensure balance between the arms, and we oversample younger and Black women, with each group representing 30% of the study population. Participants randomized to an intervention will actively participate in the intervention for 9 months, and all participants will be followed for adherence data and PRO endpoints, through the use of the Pillsy cap medication event monitoring system and Alliance ePRO survey app (i.e., Patient Cloud). The primary analysis will compare Pillsy-measured ET adherence among study arms at 12 months., Discussion: This multisite study will not only define strategies to improve adherence to breast cancer oral therapies, but it will also potentially support strategies in large cooperative research groups that can increase delivery and tolerability of ET, involve diverse patient populations in clinical research, and engage patients effectively in interventional studies, using remote and cost-effective delivery methods., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04379570 . Registered on 7 May 2020., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Patients with cancer are at heightened risk of experiencing financial hardship. Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based approach for identifying and addressing patient and caregiver financial needs. In preparation for the implementation of a multisite FN intervention, we describe existing processes (ie, events and actions) and mechanisms (ie, how events work together) connecting patients to financial assistance, comparing rural and nonrural practices., Methods: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with stakeholders (ie, administrators, providers, and staff) at each of the 10 oncology care sites across a single state (five rural and five nonrural practices). We developed process maps for each site and analyzed stakeholder perspectives using thematic analysis. After reporting findings back to stakeholders, we synthesized themes and process maps across rural and nonrural sites separately., Results: Eighty-three stakeholders were interviewed. We identified six core elements of existing financial assistance processes across all sites: distress screening (including financial concerns), referrals, resource connection points, and pharmaceutical, insurance, and community/foundation resources. Processes differed by rurality; however, facilitators and barriers to identifying and addressing patient financial needs were consistent. Open communication between staff, providers, patients, and caregivers was a primary facilitator. Barriers included insufficient staff resources, challenges in routinely identifying needs, inadequate preparation of patients for anticipated medical costs, and limited tracking of resource availability and eligibility., Conclusion: This study identified a clear need for systematic implementation of oncology FN to equitably address patient and caregiver financial hardship. Results have informed our current efforts to implement a multisite FN intervention, which involves comprehensive financial toxicity screening and systematization of intake and referrals.

BACKGROUND Our objectives were to evaluate geographic access to lung cancer treatment modalities in North Carolina and to characterize how practice patterns are changing over time. We hypothesized that rural patients would be less likely to undergo treatment compared to urban patients, with widening disparities over time. METHODS We identified patients with Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2006 to 2015 using the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry linked with Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance claims. The primary outcome was first-course treatment: surgery, radiation, or no treatment. Calendar years were split into earlier (2006-2010) and later (2011-2015) periods. We estimated the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of rural/urban status and time period with 1) surgery and 2) any treatment (surgery or radiation) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Among 5504 patients, 3206 (58%) underwent surgery as initial therapy, 1309 (24%) received radiation as initial therapy, and 989 (18%) had no therapy. There were no rural-urban disparities in treatment patterns. For rural and urban patients, the odds of surgery decreased over time and the odds of radiation increased. We also found that only 48% of those receiving no treatment ever reached a surgeon or radiation oncologist. LIMITATIONS This was an insured, single-state population. Treatment preferences are unknown. CONCLUSIONS Among all treated patients, whether urban or rural, there was increasing use of radiation and decreasing use of surgery over time. Many patients without treatment never had a consultation with a surgeon/radiation oncologist, and this is an actionable target for improving treatment access for early-stage NSCLC., (©2022 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment.. All rights reserved.)

Women with small HER2+ breast cancers may have excellent prognosis with adjuvant single-agent chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy. The role of de-escalated therapy in the neoadjuvant setting, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study of adult women with T1-2/cN0 HER2+ breast cancer diagnosed 2013-2016 in the National Cancer Database treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and HER2-targeted therapy. Factors associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) and overall survival were examined. In total, 6994 patients were included, 32% cT1 and 68% cT2. Multi-agent NAC was given to 90% of women while single-agent NAC was given to 10% of women. pCR was achieved in 46% of cT2 patients and 43% of cT1, and in 46% of patients treated with multi-agent versus 38% single agent. Patients receiving multi-agent chemotherapy were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and had higher cT stage and grade. In all patients, pCR was associated with improved survival (p < 0.01). Multi-agent chemotherapy (OR 1.3, p = 0.003), hormone receptor negative (OR 2.6, p < 0.001), higher grade (OR 2.2, p < 0.001), younger age (OR 1.4, p = 0.011), and later year of diagnosis (OR 1.3, p = 0.005) were associated with achieving pCR. Multi-agent chemotherapy was associated with higher likelihood of pCR, but this effect was modest compared to other factors. Single-agent NAC with HER2-directed therapy in selected patients may provide excellent outcome with reduced toxicity, while allowing escalated therapy in the adjuvant setting for patients with residual disease. Prospective studies are needed to determine effects of de-escalation in the neoadjuvant setting on survival and optimal selection strategies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The excellent outcomes seen in patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in the ATEMPT trial and the favorable toxicity profile associated with this agent make T-DM1 a potential therapeutic option for select patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. Moreover, T-DM1 is an established adjuvant treatment for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with the residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy. Given that cardiotoxicity is the most significant adverse event of trastuzumab, which is a main molecular component of T-DM1, we conducted a sub-analysis of the ATEMPT trial to determine the cardiac safety of adjuvant T-DM1. In this analysis, the incidence of grade 3-4 left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in T-DM1 or trastuzumab plus paclitaxel arms were respectively 0.8 and 1.8%. In addition, three (0.8%) patients in the T-DM1 arm and six (5.3%) patients in the adjuvant paclitaxel with trastuzumab (TH) arm experienced a significant asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline that per-protocol required holding T-DM1 or trastuzumab. All patients with available follow-up data experienced full resolution of cardiac symptoms and LVEF normalization. Furthermore, we performed an exploratory analysis to assess the relationship between age, baseline LVEF, and body mass index with cardiac outcomes. No significant association between these baseline characteristics and the incidence of significant asymptomatic LVEF decline or symptomatic LVSD was identified. The low incidence of significant cardiac adverse events in this population during therapy with adjuvant T-DM1 suggests that studies on the cost-effectiveness of cardiac monitoring during adjuvant therapy using anthracycline-free regimens are needed.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01853748., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the presence of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, however, the response to single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is modest. Preclinical models have demonstrated that intratumoral regulatory T cells (T regs ) dampen the antitumor response to ICI. We performed a single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of a single low dose of cyclophosphamide (Cy) to deplete T regs administered before initiating pembrolizumab., Patients and Methods: 40 patients with pretreated metastatic TNBC were enrolled. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and change in peripheral blood T regs after Cy. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, overall survival, treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and correlative evaluations., Results: Median PFS was 1.8 months, and the ORR was 21%. T regs were not significantly decreased after Cy prior to ICI (-3.3%, p=0.19), and increased significantly after the first cycle of therapy (+21% between cycles 1 and 2, p=0.005). Immune-related AEs were similar to historical pembrolizumab monotherapy, and were associated with response to therapy (p=0.02). Patients with pretreatment tumors harboring increased expression of B cell metagene signatures and increased circulating B cell receptor repertoire diversity were associated with clinical response and immune-related toxicity (IRT)., Conclusions: Among patients with heavily pretreated TNBC, Cy prior to pembrolizumab did not significantly deplete T regs , and in those with decreased numbers there was rapid recovery following therapy. Increased B cell gene expression in baseline samples was associated with clinical response and IRT., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CKA receives research funding from PUMA, Lilly, MSD, Seattle Genetics, Nektar, Tesaro, and G1 Therapeutics, ZION, Novartis, Pfizer; compensation for consulting from Genentech, Eisai, IPSEN, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca, Novartis; and royalties from UpToDate and Jones and Bartlett. BV holds equity in GeneCentric Therapeutics. CP is an equity stockholder and consultant of BioClassifier, and an equity stock holder, consultant, and Board of Directors member of GeneCentric Therapeutics. CP is also listed as an inventor on patent applications for the Breast PAM50 assay. JS receives funding from MSD, GSK, and Carisma, is a scientific consultant for PIQUE Therapeutics and has filed IP for the use of STING agonists to enhance CAR T cell for breast cancer. The other authors have no conflicts requiring disclosure., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: The ATEMPT trial was designed to determine if treatment with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) caused less toxicity than paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) and yielded clinically acceptable invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) among patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC)., Methods: Patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2+ BC were randomly assigned 3:1 to T-DM1 or TH and received T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or T 80 mg/m 2 IV with H once every week × 12 weeks (4 mg/kg load →2 mg/kg), followed by H × 39 weeks (6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The co-primary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities (CRTs) in patients treated with T-DM1 versus TH and to evaluate iDFS in patients receiving T-DM1., Results: The analysis population includes all 497 patients who initiated protocol therapy (383 T-DM1 and 114 TH). CRTs were experienced by 46% of patients on T-DM1 and 47% of patients on TH ( P = .83). The 3-year iDFS for T-DM1 was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), which rejected the null hypothesis ( P < .0001). Serially collected patient-reported outcomes indicated that patients treated with T-DM1 had less neuropathy and alopecia and better work productivity compared with patients on TH., Conclusion: Among patients with stage I HER2+ BC, one year of adjuvant T-DM1 was associated with excellent 3-year iDFS, but was not associated with fewer CRT compared with TH., Competing Interests: Sara TolaneyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, NanoString Technologies, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Celldex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Paxman, Seattle Genetics, Odonate Therapeutics, AbbVie, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, OncoPep, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Samsung Bioepis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Immunomedics/Gilead, Mersana, CertaraResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Cyclacel, Nektar, Immunomedics, Odonate Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle GeneticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Eisai, NanoString Technologies, Puma Biotechnology, Celldex Chau DangHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, eviCore healthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology, eviCore healthcareResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Puma Biotechnology Denise YardleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Biotheranostics, Bristol Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Athenex, Immunomedics, Sanofi/Aventis, R-Pharm, LillySpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, MedImmune, Lilly, Medivation, Pfizer, Tesaro, Macrogenics, AbbVie, Merck, Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Biomarin, Biothera, Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, Incyte, Innocrin Pharma, Nektar, NSABP Foundation, Odonate Therapeutics, PolyphorTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Genentech/Roche Steven IsakoffConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, OncoPep, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, NovartisResearch Funding: Genentech, PharmaMar, AbbVie, OncoPep, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Outcomes4Me Vicente ValeroHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Merck, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, MerckTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech/Roche Therese MulveyConsulting or Advisory Role: Outcomes4Me Ron BoseConsulting or Advisory Role: GenentechResearch Funding: Puma Biotechnology Antonio WolffConsulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Biomarin, CelldexPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications related to methylation in breast cancer and has assigned his rights to JHU and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Katherine Reeder-HayesResearch Funding: Pfizer Hope RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, MylanConsulting or Advisory Role: SamsungResearch Funding: Macrogenics, OBI Pharma, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics, Odonate Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Macrogenics, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca Spain, MerckOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Bhuvaneswari RamaswamyConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai Lowell HartHonoraria: Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, G1 Therapeutics, Veracyte, Karyopharm TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Merck, Seattle GeneticsSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, NovartisResearch Funding: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics Vijayakrishna GadiLeadership: SEngine Precision MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sengine precision medicine, Novilla, 3rdEyeBio, New Equilibrium BiosciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Novartis, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: Seagen, bioTheranosticsResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, SignalOne Bio, AgendiaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: NovartisOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/2511 Bryan SchneiderHonoraria: Lilly, Research to Practice Paul MarcomConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, ImmunomedicsResearch Funding: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Verily, Glycomimetics, MillenniumOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/237508/summary Kathy AlbainConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Agendia, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Seattle GeneticsOther Relationship: Puma Biotechnology Nadine TungResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Rita NandaConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Macrogenics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Aduro Biotech, ION Pharma, Seattle Genetics, ImmunomedicsResearch Funding: Corcept Therapeutics, Celgene, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ImmunomedicsOther Relationship: G1 Therapeutics Rachel JankowitzHonoraria: EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Mothaffar RimawiConsulting or Advisory Role: Macrogenics, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, GenentechResearch Funding: Pfizer Vandana AbramsonEmployment: HCA HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbvieResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Lilly Paula PohlmannLeadership: Immunonet BioSciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Immunonet BioSciencesHonoraria: Dava Oncology, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, Frontiers—PublisherConsulting or Advisory Role: Personalized Cancer Therapy, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Immunonet BioSciences, Pfizer, HERON, Puma Biotechnology, Sirtex Medical, Caris Life Sciences, Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Bolt BiotherapeuticsSpeakers' Bureau: Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Fabre-Kramer, Advanced Cancer Therapeutics, Caris Centers of Excellence, Pfizer, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Cascadian Therapeutics, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Byondis, SeagenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: United States Patent no. 8486413, United States Patent no. 8501417, United States Patent no. 9023362, United States Patent no. 9745377, Patent application Catherine Van PoznakResearch Funding: BayerPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate Andres Forero-TorresEmployment: Seattle GeneticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Seattle Genetics Minetta LiuResearch Funding: Eisai, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, GRAIL, Merck, Tesaro, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Genomic HealthTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: GRAIL, Merck, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Kathryn RuddyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: My husband is a co-inventor of technology licensed by Mayo Clinic to AliveCor (MountainView, CA), which makes a smartphone-enabled remote ECG monitoring system Richard GelberResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis Bill BarryEmployment: Rho Ann PartridgePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I receive small royalty payments for co-authoring the breast cancer survivorship section of UpToDateTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Eric WinerHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Genomic HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: Leap Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Jounce Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Carrick Therapeutics, Lilly, G1 Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Zymeworks, AthenexResearch Funding: GenentechOther Relationship: InfiniteMD Ian KropEmployment: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline TherapeuticsLeadership: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline Therapeutics, VertexHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, CelltrionConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Macrogenics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Context Therapeutics, Novartis, Merck, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Genentech, PfizerNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, cancer health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. In 2009, ASCO committed to addressing differences in cancer outcomes in its original policy statement on cancer disparities. Over the past decade, despite novel diagnostics and therapeutics, together with changes in the cancer care delivery system such as passage of the Affordable Care Act, cancer disparities persist. Our understanding of the populations experiencing disparate outcomes has likewise expanded to include the intersections of race/ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation and gender identity, sociodemographic factors, and others. This updated statement is intended to guide ASCO's future activities and strategies to achieve its mission of conquering cancer for all populations. ASCO acknowledges that much work remains to be done, by all cancer stakeholders at the systems level, to overcome historical momentum and existing social structures responsible for disparate cancer outcomes. This updated statement affirms ASCO's commitment to moving beyond descriptions of differences in cancer outcomes toward achievement of cancer health equity, with a focus on improving equitable access to care, improving clinical research, addressing structural barriers, and increasing awareness that results in measurable and timely action toward achieving cancer health equity for all., Competing Interests: The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Background: Lack of health insurance coverage is associated with poor access and receipt of cancer care and survival in the United States. Disruptions in coverage are common among low-income populations, but little is known about associations of disruptions with cancer care, including prevention, screening, and treatment, as well as outcomes of stage at diagnosis and survival., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies of health insurance coverage disruptions and cancer care and outcomes published between 1980 and 2019. We used the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL databases and identified 29 observational studies. Study characteristics and key findings were abstracted and synthesized qualitatively., Results: Studies evaluated associations between coverage disruptions and prevention or screening (31.0%), treatment (13.8%), end-of-life care (10.3%), stage at diagnosis (44.8%), and survival (20.7%). Coverage disruptions ranged from 4.3% to 32.8% of patients age-eligible for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Between 22.1% and 59.5% of patients with Medicaid gained coverage only at or after cancer diagnosis. Coverage disruptions were consistently statistically significantly associated with lower receipt of prevention, screening, and treatment. Among patients with cancer, those with Medicaid disruptions were statistically significantly more likely to have advanced stage (odds ratios = 1.2-3.8) and worse survival (hazard ratios = 1.28-2.43) than patients without disruptions., Conclusions: Health insurance coverage disruptions are common and adversely associated with receipt of cancer care and survival. Improved data infrastructure and quasi-experimental study designs will be important for evaluating the associations of federal and state policies on coverage disruptions and care and outcomes., (Published by Oxford University Press 2020. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Introduction: Studies show palliative care delivered concurrently with cancer treatment improves outcomes, yet palliative care integration with inpatient oncology is underused. A promising approach to improve integration is a triggered palliative care consultation (TPCC). This study evaluated the impact of two TPCC approaches on consistency and quality of consult implementation, operationalized as uptake and timeliness, on solid tumor medical and gynecologic oncology services at an academic hospital., Methods: The study timeframe was 2010-2016. TPCC in gynecologic oncology began in 2014 and was supported by a single strategy (written guideline); TPCC in medical oncology began in 2015 and was supported by multiple strategies (e.g. training, chart review). Palliative care consult information was chart abstracted and linked to hospital encounter data. We compared the effect of a single strategy vs. usual care, and multiple strategies vs. a single strategy on implementation. Difference-in-differences modified Poisson regression models evaluated whether implementation differed after TPCC; we estimated adjusted relative risk (aRR), controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics., Results: Overall, 8.8% of medical oncology and 11.0% of gynecologic oncology inpatient encounters involved palliative care consultation. In regression analyses, TPCC supported by a single strategy in gynecologic oncology was associated with greater uptake vs. usual care (aRR: 1.45, p < .05), and TPCC supported by multiple strategies in medical oncology was associated with greater uptake vs. a single strategy (aRR: 2.34, p < .001)., Conclusion: Across two inpatient oncology services, TPCC supported by multiple strategies had the greatest impact on uptake. How strategies affect sustained use of palliative care consults remains to be investigated., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Buparlisib is an oral pan-class I phosphotidyinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor. The present phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of buparlisib with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients received buparlisib once daily (range, 50 to 100 mg) for 3 weeks with capecitabine twice daily (range, 1000 to 1250 mg/m 2 ) for 2 weeks with a 1-week break. Dose escalation used a traditional "3 + 3" design with standard definitions of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose., Results: Of the 25 patients enrolled, 23 were evaluable for DLT and 17 were evaluable for response. The maximum tolerated dose of the combination was buparlisib 100 mg daily and capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 twice daily. DLTs included grade 3 hyperglycemia and grade 3 confusion. The most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine transaminase. One patient exhibited a complete response to treatment and four had a confirmed partial response. In cohorts 3 and 4, in which the buparlisib dose remained constant but the capecitabine dose was increased, significant increases in the buparlisib plasma concentration were noted., Conclusion: The combination of buparlisib with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer was generally well-tolerated, with several patients demonstrating prolonged responses. Unexpectedly low rates of PIK3CA mutations (3 of 17) were seen, and only 2 of 7 tumors with subtyping were luminal, making exploration of these putative predictive markers impossible. Further study of the combination is not unreasonable, with expanded pharmacokinetics and sequencing analysis to better elucidate potential drug-drug interactions and more accurate predictive biomarkers of response., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The implementation science literature has contributed important insights regarding the influence of formal policies and practices on health care innovation implementation, whereas informal implementation policies and practices have garnered little attention. The broader literature suggests that informal implementation policies and practices could also influence innovation use., Purpose: We used the Organizational Theory of Innovation Implementation to further understand the role of formal and informal implementation policies and practices as determinants of implementation effectiveness. We examined their role within the context of initiatives to increase palliative care consultation in inpatient oncology., Methods: We used a case study design in two organizational settings within one academic medical center: medical and gynecologic oncology. We completed semistructured interviews with medical (n = 12) and gynecologic (n = 10) oncology clinicians using questions based on organizational theory. Quantitative data assessed implementation effectiveness, defined as aggregated palliative care consult rates within oncology services from 2010 to 2016. Four palliative care clinicians were interviewed to gain additional implementation context insights., Results: Medical oncology employed multiple formal policies and practices including training and clinician prompting to support palliative care consultation and a top-down approach, yet most clinicians were unaware of the policies and practices, contributing to a weak implementation climate. In contrast, gynecologic oncology employed one formal policy (written guideline of criteria for initiating a consult) but also relied on informal policies and practices, such as spontaneous feedback and communication; they adopted a bottom-up approach, contributing to broader clinician awareness and strong implementation climate. Both services exhibited variable, increasing consult rates over time., Practice Implications: Informal policies and practices may compensate or substitute for formal policies and practices under certain conditions (e.g., smaller health care organizations). Further research is needed to investigate the role of formal and informal policies and practices in shaping a strong and sustainable implementation climate and subsequent effective innovation implementation.

Background: Prior research indicates that hospice and palliative care delivered in outpatient settings are associated with reduced hospital readmissions for cancer patients. However, little is known about how inpatient palliative care affects readmissions in oncology., Objective: To examine associations among inpatient palliative care consultation, hospice use (discharge), and 30-day readmissions among patients with solid tumor cancers., Methods: We identified all live discharges from a large tertiary cancer hospital between 2010 and 2016. Palliative care consult data were abstracted from medical charts and linked to hospital encounter data. Propensity scores were used to match palliative care consult to usual care encounters. Modified Poisson regression models estimated adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 30-day readmissions and hospice discharge. We compared predicted probabilities of readmission for palliative care consultation with hospice discharge, without hospice discharge, and usual care., Results: Of 8085 eligible encounters, 753 involved a palliative care consult. The likelihood of having a 30-day readmission did not differ between palliative care consult and usual care groups (p > 0.05). However, the palliative care consult group was more likely than usual care to have a hospice discharge (aRR = 4.09, 95% CI: 3.07-5.44). The predicted probability of 30-day readmission was lower when palliative care consultation was combined with hospice discharge compared to usual care or consultation with discharge to nonhospice postacute care (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The effect of inpatient palliative care on readmissions in oncology is largely driven by hospice enrollment. Strategies that combine palliative care consultation with hospice discharge may decrease hospital readmissions and improve cancer care quality.

Background: Younger women (aged 18-44 years) diagnosed with breast cancer often face more aggressive tumors, higher treatment intensity, and lower survival rates than older women. In this study, we estimated incident breast cancer costs by stage at diagnosis and by race for younger women enrolled in Medicaid., Methods: We analyzed cancer registry data linked to Medicaid claims in North Carolina from 2003 to 2008. We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Summary 2000 definitions for cancer stage. We split breast cancer patients into two cohorts: a younger and older group aged 18-44 and 45-64 years, respectively. We conducted a many-to-one match between patients with and without breast cancer using age, county, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. We calculated mean excess total cost of care between breast cancer and non-breast cancer patients., Results: At diagnosis, younger women had a higher proportion of regional cancers than older women (49 vs. 42%) and lower proportions of localized cancers (44 vs. 50%) and distant cancers (7 vs. 9%). The excess costs of breast cancer (all stages) for younger and older women at 6 months after diagnosis were $37,114 [95% confidence interval (CI) = $35,769-38,459] and $28,026 (95% CI = $27,223-28,829), respectively. In the 6 months after diagnosis, the estimated excess cost was significantly higher to treat localized and regional cancer among younger women than among older women. There were no statistically significant differences in excess costs of breast cancer by race, but differences in treatment modality were present among younger Medicaid beneficiaries., Conclusions: Younger breast cancer patients not only had a higher prevalence of late-stage cancer than older women, but also had higher within-stage excess costs.

Purpose: Trastuzumab is a key component of adjuvant therapy for stage I to III human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. The rates and patterns of trastuzumab use have never been described in a population-based sample. The recent addition of HER2 information to the SEER-Medicare database offers an opportunity to examine patterns of trastuzumab use and to evaluate possible disparities in receipt of trastuzumab., Methods: We examined a national cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with incident stage I to III HER2-positive breast cancer diagnosed in 2010 and 2011 (n = 1,362). We used insurance claims data to track any use of trastuzumab in the 12 months after diagnosis as well as to identify chemotherapy drugs used in partnership with trastuzumab. We used modified Poisson regression analysis to evaluate the independent effect of race on likelihood of receiving trastuzumab by controlling for clinical need, comorbidity, and community-level socioeconomic status., Results: Overall, 50% of white women and 40% of black women received some trastuzumab therapy. Among women with stage III disease, 74% of whites and 56% of blacks received trastuzumab. After adjustment for tumor characteristics, poverty, and comorbidity, black women were 25% less likely to receive trastuzumab within 1 year of diagnosis than white women (risk ratio, 0.745; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.93)., Conclusion: Approxemately one half of patients 65 years of age and older with stage I to III breast cancer do not receive trastuzumab-based therapy, which includes many with locally advanced disease. Significant racial disparities exist in the receipt of this highly effective therapy. Further research that identifies barriers to use and increases uptake of trastuzumab could potentially improve recurrence and survival outcomes in this population, particularly among minority women., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Oncotype DX (ODX), a tumor gene profiling test, has been incorporated into clinical guidelines to aid in adjuvant chemotherapy decision making for early-stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients. Despite United States (U.S.) guidelines, less than half of eligible women receive testing. Reasons for low usage are unclear: Our objective was to better understand U.S. oncologists' ODX uptake and how they use ODX during adjuvant chemotherapy decision making., Methods: We conducted semi-structured, ~30-minute phone interviews with medical and surgical oncologists in one U.S. State using purposive sampling. Oncologists were included if they saw greater than or equal to five breast cancer patients per week. Recruitment ended upon thematic saturation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and double-coded using template analysis., Results: During analysis, themes emerged across three domains. First, organizational factors (i.e., departmental structure, ODX marketing, and medical/insurance guidelines) influenced ease of ODX use. Second, oncologists referenced the influence of interpersonal factors (e.g., normative beliefs and peer use of ODX) over their own practices and recommendations. Third, intrapersonal factors (e.g., oncologist attitudes, perceived barriers, and research gaps) were discussed: although oncologists largely held positive attitudes about ODX, they reported challenges with interpreting intermediate scores for treatment decisions and explaining test results to patients. Finally, oncologists identified several research gaps., Conclusions: As more tumor gene profiling tests are incorporated into cancer care for treatment decision making, it is important to understand their use in clinical practice. This study identified multi-level factors that influence ODX uptake into clinical practice, providing insights into facilitators and modifiable barriers that can be leveraged for improving ODX uptake to aid treatment decision making.