Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study.

OBJECTIVES: Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards. DESIGN: Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1). SETTING: Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included. METHODS: Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories. RESULTS: Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider's information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the necessity that patients' experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients' information engagement into types. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01399359.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT). METHODS: In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables. RESULTS: A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment.

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Establishing a Primary Care Alliance for Conducting Cancer Prevention Clinical Research at Community Sites.

In September 2020, the National Cancer Institute convened the first PARTNRS Workshop as an initiative to forge partnerships between oncologists, primary care professionals, and non-oncology specialists for promoting patient accrual into cancer prevention trials. This effort is aimed at bringing about more effective accrual methods to generate decisive outcomes in cancer prevention research. The workshop convened to inspire solutions to challenges encountered during the development and implementation of cancer prevention trials. Ultimately, strategies suggested for protocol development might enhance integration of these trials into community settings where a diversity of patients might be accrued. Research Bases (cancer research organizations that develop protocols) could encourage more involvement of primary care professionals, relevant prevention specialists, and patient representatives with protocol development beginning at the concept level to improve adoptability of the trials within community facilities, and consider various incentives to primary care professionals (i.e., remuneration). Principal investigators serving as liaisons for the NCORP affiliates and sub-affiliates, might produce and maintain "Prevention Research Champions" lists of PCPs and non-oncology specialists relevant in prevention research who can attract health professionals to consider incorporating prevention research into their practices. Finally, patient advocates and community health providers might convince patients of the benefits of trial-participation and encourage "shared-decision making."

DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings.

Patients, practitioners, and policy makers are increasingly concerned about the delivery of ineffective or low-value clinical practices in cancer care settings. Research is needed on how to effectively deimplement these types of practices from cancer care. In this commentary, we spotlight the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), a national network of community oncology practices, and elaborate on how it is an ideal infrastructure for conducting rigorous, real-world research on deimplementation. We describe key multilevel issues that affect deimplementation and also serve as a guidepost for developing strategies to drive deimplementation. We describe optimal study designs for testing deimplementation strategies and elaborate on how and why the NCORP network is uniquely positioned to conduct rigorous and impactful deimplementation trials. The number and diversity of affiliated community oncology care sites, coupled with the overall objective of improving cancer care delivery, make the NCORP an opportune infrastructure for advancing deimplementation research while simultaneously improving the care of millions of cancer patients nationwide.

Use of a clinical trial screening tool to enhance patient accrual.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial patient accrual continues to be challenging despite the identification of multiple physician, patient, and system barriers. Expanded collection of demographic data, including socioeconomic status (employment, income, education) and comorbidities, can enhance our understanding of the identified barriers, inform the development of interventions to overcome these barriers, and recognize their impact on treatment outcomes. A clinical trials screening tool was developed to collect expanded demographic data and barriers to trial enrollment; it has been implemented in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of the tool and to share information obtained during the first 43 months of its use. METHODS: There were 19,373 entries collected; 74% of those screened enrolled in a clinical trial. Demographic characteristics were compared between those screened and those enrolled. They varied significantly between the groups. RESULTS: Reasons for nonenrollment included ineligibility (50%), eligible but declined (47%), eligible but physician declined to offer participation (2%), and eligible but the study was suspended (1%). The most common reasons for ineligibility were failure to meet the protocol-specific stage of cancer, the presence of comorbidities, and the symptom-eligibility score was not met. The most common reason for eligible patients declining participation was that they had no desire to participate in research. CONCLUSIONS: The tool provides valuable information about the characteristics of individuals who are screened and enrolled in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials, as well as about barriers to enrollment in trials. The data also inform protocol development and interventions at the patient, provider, and institutional level.

Standardization of lower extremity quantitative lymphedema measurements and associated patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancers.

Practice changing standardization of lower extremity lymphedema quantitative measurements with integrated patient reported outcomes will likely refine and redefine the optimal risk-reduction strategies to diminish the devastating limb-related dysfunction and morbidity associated with treatment of gynecologic cancers. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Division of Cancer Prevention brought together a diverse group of cancer treatment, therapy and patient reported outcomes experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science in lymphedema evaluation with the potential goal of incorporating new strategies for optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing gynecologic clinical trials.

COVID-19, Social Justice, and Clinical Cancer Research.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related socioeconomic events have markedly changed the environment in which cancer clinical trials are conducted. These events have resulted in a substantial, immediate-term decrease in accrual to both diagnostic and therapeutic cancer investigations as well as substantive alterations in patterns of oncologic care. The sponsors of clinical trials, including the US National Cancer Institute, as well as the cancer centers and community oncology practices that conduct such studies, have all markedly adapted their models of care, usage of healthcare personnel, and regulatory requirements in the attempt to continue clinical cancer investigations while maintaining high levels of patient safety. In doing so, major changes in clinical trials practice have been embraced nationwide. There is a growing consensus that the regulatory and clinical research process alterations that have been adopted in response to the pandemic (such as the use of telemedicine visits to reduce patient travel requirements and the application of remote informed consent procedures) should be implemented long term. The COVID-19 outbreak has also refocused the oncologic clinical trials community on the need to bring clinical trials closer to patients by dramatically enhancing clinical trial access, especially for minority and underserved communities that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In this commentary, changes to the program of clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute that could improve clinical trial availability, effectiveness, and diversity are proposed.

Tomosynthesis mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST): An Invitation and Opportunity for the National Medical Association Community to Shape the Future of Precision Screening for Breast Cancer.

To determine the best screening modality for breast cancer, a large randomized clinical trial is underway to compare the mammographic accuracy between the standard digital and tomosynthesis mammography. The Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST) is also building the world's largest biorepository of breast cancer specimens from all biopsies at screening and wants to ensure it is representative of the US population. We invite the National Medical Association physicians, as leaders in the health care of African Americans, to continue their commitment to eliminating disparities by promoting the TMIST among African American women. The outcome of the trial will help to advance precision screening, individually tailoring screening decisions based on breast density, tumor subtyping and genomics. The partnership with NMA is essential to building trust, dispelling misconceptions about clinical trials in the community as well as to support a cadre of African American physicians and researchers who can contribute to the current understanding of the social determinants of breast cancer.

Patient-Reported Cognitive Impairment Among Women With Early Breast Cancer Randomly Assigned to Endocrine Therapy Alone Versus Chemoendocrine Therapy: Results From TAILORx.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is common during adjuvant chemotherapy and may persist. TAILORx provided a novel opportunity to prospectively assess patient-reported cognitive impairment among women with early breast cancer who were randomly assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (CT+E) versus endocrine therapy alone (E), allowing us to quantify the unique contribution of chemotherapy to CRCI. METHODS: Women with a 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 enrolled in TAILORX were randomly assigned to CT+E or E. Cognitive impairment was assessed among a subgroup of 552 evaluable women using the 37-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, administered at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The FACT-Cog included the 20-item Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) scale, our primary end point. Clinically meaningful changes were defined a priori and linear regression was used to model PCI scores on baseline PCI, treatment, and other factors. RESULTS: FACT-Cog PCI scores were significantly lower, indicating more impairment, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months compared with baseline for both groups. The magnitude of PCI change scores was greater for CT+E than E at 3 months, the prespecified primary trial end point, and at 6 months, but not at 12, 24, and 36 months. Tests of an interaction between menopausal status and treatment were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant CT+E is associated with significantly greater CRCI compared with E at 3 and 6 months. These differences abated over time, with no significant differences observed at 12 months and beyond. These findings indicate that chemotherapy produces early, but not sustained, cognitive impairment relative to E, providing reassurance to patients and clinicians in whom adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated to reduce recurrence risk.

Reporting of health-related quality of life endpoints in National Cancer Institute-supported cancer treatment trials.

BACKGROUND: The importance of capturing and reporting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in clinical trials has been increasingly recognized in the oncology field. As a result, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) began to provide support for correlative HRQOL studies in cancer treatment trials. The current study was conducted to assess the publication rate of HRQOL correlative studies in NCI-supported treatment trials and to identify potential factors positively or negatively associated with publication rates. METHODS: The NCI conducted a retrospective review of existing NCI databases to identify cancer treatment trials that had obtained additional NCI funding for the assessment of HRQOL and to determine the extent to which funded HRQOL studies have been completed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: Of the 108 included trials, 58 (54%) had a parent trial (PT) publication; of these, 36 trials (62%) had a published HRQOL result: 20 as an independent publication and 16 that were included and/or reported in the PT publication. The length of time between trial activation and closure, as well as the specific cancer, appeared to be associated with the publication rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that approximately 45% of the PT publications were followed by a HRQOL publication within 1 year, to allow the knowledge to be used in patient treatment decision making. The authors believe the current analysis is an important first step toward a better understand of the challenges that researchers face when reporting HRQOL endpoints.

Other- and all-cause Mortality among women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Advances in early detection and treatment of breast cancer (BrCA) have led to better survival. Consequently, more women with BrCA now die from non-BrCA causes. We investigated all-cause and other-cause (non-BrCA) survival among women with BrCA. METHODS: From the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PCLO) cohort, we selected women diagnosed with BrCA from 1994-2014. To compare survival of cases to non-cases, we used exposure density sampling. We computed standard mortality ratios (SMRs) and performed Cox proportional hazards models with matched case-control sets, controlling for demographics (Model I) and additional covariates (Model II). We also examined survival by stage within BrCA cases. RESULTS: Among 78,215 women enrolled in PLCO, there were 1211 in-situ and 4790 invasive BrCA cases. 15-year survival rates were 97.1 % (BrCA-specific) and 77.2 % (other-cause) among in-situ and 86.4 % (BrCA-specific) and 73.4 % (other-cause) among invasive cases. For other-cause mortality, in-situ cases had lower risk in models I (HR = 0.74; 95 % CI:0.62-0.89) and II (HR = 0.75; 95 % CI:0.62-0.92) versus controls. All-cause mortality HRs for in-situ cases were 0.83 (95 % CI:0.70-0.99) and 0.85 (95 % CI:0.70-1.02) in Models I and II, respectively. Other-cause mortality was similar among invasive cases and controls. Within BrCA cases, higher stage was associated with increased other-cause mortality; HRs were 1.2 (95 % CI:1.1-1.5) and 1.7 (95 % CI:1.2-2.3) for stage II and III/IV versus stage I (Model II). DISCUSSION: Mortality from other causes exceeded that of BrCA in both in-situ and invasive cases, highlighting the importance of managing patients' chronic conditions during and following cancer treatment.

The Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) Trial: Lessons for Genomic Trial Design.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. METHODS: Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA-targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. RESULTS: At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). CONCLUSIONS: The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Evolution of Cancer Care Delivery Research in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program.

Research seeking to improve patient engagement with decision-making, use of evidence-based guidelines, and coordination of multi-specialty care has made important contributions to the decades-long effort to improve cancer care. The National Cancer Institute expanded support for these efforts by including cancer care delivery research in the 2014 formation of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Cancer care delivery research is a multi-disciplinary effort to generate evidence-based practice change that improves clinical outcomes and patient well-being. NCORP scientists and community-based clinicians and organizations rapidly embraced the addition of this type of research into the network, resulting in a robust portfolio of observational studies and intervention studies within the first 5 years of funding. This commentary describes the initial considerations in conducting this type of research in a network previously focused on cancer prevention, control, and treatment studies; characterizes the protocols developed to date; and outlines future directions for cancer care delivery research in the second round of NCORP funding.

Randomized Trial of Lisinopril Versus Carvedilol to Prevent Trastuzumab Cardiotoxicity in Patients With Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab is highly effective for human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer but is associated with a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or beta-blockers reduce the rate of trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity (left ventricular ejection fraction decrease >10%, or >5% if below 50%) and limit treatment interruptions. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, cardiotoxicity and treatment interruptions in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab for 12 months were evaluated over a 2-year period. Patients were stratified by anthracycline use and then randomized to receive lisinopril, carvedilol, or placebo. RESULTS: The study included 468 women, age 51 ± 10.7 years. For the entire cohort, cardiotoxicity was comparable in the 3 arms and occurred in 32% of patients on placebo, 29% on carvedilol, and 30% on lisinopril. For patients receiving anthracyclines, the event rates were higher in the placebo group (47%) than in the lisinopril (37%) and the carvedilol (31%) groups. Cardiotoxicity-free survival was longer on both carvedilol (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 0.89; p = 0.009) and lisinopril (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.94; p = 0.015) than on placebo. In the whole cohort, as well as in the anthracycline arm, patients on active therapy with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or beta-blockers experienced fewer interruptions in trastuzumab than those on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, both lisinopril and carvedilol prevented cardiotoxicity in patients receiving anthracyclines. For such patients, lisinopril or carvedilol should be considered to minimize interruptions of trastuzumab. (Lisinopril or Coreg CR in Reducing Side Effects in Women With Breast Cancer Receiving Trastuzumab; NCT01009918).

Understanding Decision Making about Breast Cancer Prevention in Action: The Intersection of Perceived Risk, Perceived Control, and Social Context: NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1.

BACKGROUND: Literature on decision making about breast cancer prevention focuses on individual perceptions and attitudes that predict chemoprevention use, rather than the process by which women decide whether to take risk-reducing medications. This secondary analysis aimed to understand how women's perceptions of breast cancer risk and locus of control influence their decision making. METHODS: Women were accrued as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1, a study aimed at understanding contributors to chemoprevention uptake. Thirty women participated in qualitative in-depth interviews after being counseled about chemoprevention. Deductive codes grouped women based on dimensions of risk perception and locus of control. We used a constant comparative method to make connections among inductive themes focused on decision making, deductive codes for perceived risk and perceived locus of control, and the influence of explanatory models within and across participants. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly non-Hispanic white (63%), with an average age of 50.9 years. Decision making varied across groups: the high-perceived risk/high-perceived control group used "social evidence" to model the behaviors of others. High-perceived risk/low-perceived control women made decisions based on beliefs about treatment, rooted in the experiences of social contacts. The low-perceived risk/low-perceived control group interpreted signs of risk as part of the normal continuum of bodily changes in comparison to others. Low-perceived risk/high-perceived control women focused on maintaining a current healthy trajectory. CONCLUSION: "Social evidence" plays an important role in the decision-making process that is distinct from emotional aspects. Attending to patients' perceptions of risk and control in conjunction with social context is key to caring for patients at high risk in a way that is evidence based and sensitive to patient preferences.

Association of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a 12-Gene Expression Assay With Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Treatment.

IMPORTANCE: Advanced diagnostics, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and gene expression profiles, are potentially useful to guide targeted treatment in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). OBJECTIVES: To examine the proportion of patients who converted to mastectomy after MRI and the reasons for those conversions and to measure patient adherence to radiotherapy guided by the 12-gene DCIS score. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of a prospective, cohort, nonrandomized clinical trial that enrolled women with DCIS on core biopsy who were candidates for wide local excision (WLE) from 75 institutions from March 25, 2015, to April 27, 2016, through the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial E4112. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent breast MRI before surgery, and subsequent management incorporated MRI findings for choice of surgery. The DCIS score was used to guide radiotherapy recommendations among women with DCIS who had WLE as the final procedure and had tumor-free excision margins of 2 mm or greater. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was to estimate the conversion rate to mastectomy and the reason for conversion. RESULTS: Of 339 evaluable women (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [10.1] years; 262 [77.3%] of European descent) eligible for WLE before MRI, 65 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.3%-23.7%) converted to mastectomy. Of these 65 patients, conversion was based on MRI findings in 25 (38.5%), patient preference in 25 (38.5%), positive margins after attempted WLE in 10 (15.4%), positive genetic test results in 3 (4.6%), and contraindication to radiotherapy in 2 (3.1%). Among the 285 who had WLE performed after MRI as the first surgical procedure, 274 (96.1%) achieved successful breast conservation. Of 171 women eligible for radiotherapy guided by DCIS score (clear margins, absence of invasive disease, and score obtained), the score was low (<39) in 82 (48.0%; 95% CI, 40.6%-55.4%) and intermediate-high (≥39) in 89 (52.0%; 95% CI, 44.6%-59.4%). Of these 171 patients, 159 (93.0%) were adherent with recommendations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among women with DCIS who were WLE candidates based on conventional imaging, multiple factors were associated with conversion to mastectomy. This study may provide useful preliminary information required for designing a planned randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of MRI and DCIS score on surgical management, radiotherapy, overall resource use, and clinical outcomes, with the ultimate goal of achieving greater therapeutic precision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02352883.

Leveraging National Cancer Institute Programmatic Collaboration for Uterine Cervix Cancer Patient Accrual in Puerto Rico.

Women in the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR) have a higher age-adjusted incidence rate for uterine cervix cancer than the U.S. mainland as well as substantial access and economic barriers to cancer care. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) funds a Minority/Underserved NCI Community Oncology Research Program in PR (PRNCORP) as part of a national network of community-based health-care systems to conduct multisite cancer clinical trials in diverse populations. Participation by the PRNCORP in NCI's uterine cervix cancer clinical trials, however, has remained limited. This study reports on the findings of an NCI site visit in PR to assess barriers impeding site activation and accrual to its sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials. Qualitative, semi-structured individual, and group interviews were conducted at six PRNCORP-affiliated locations to ascertain: long-term trial accrual objectives; key stakeholders in PR that address uterine cervix cancer care; key challenges or barriers to activating and to enrolling patients in NCI uterine cervix cancer treatment trials; and resources, policies, or procedures in place or needed on the island to support NCI-sponsored clinical trials. An NCI-sponsored uterine cervix cancer radiation-chemotherapy intervention clinical trial (NCT02466971), already activated on the island, served as a test case to identify relevant patient accrual and site barriers. The site visit identified five key barriers to accrual: (1) lack of central personnel to coordinate referrals for treatment plans, medical tests, and medical imaging across the island's clinical trial access points; (2) patient insurance coverage; (3) lack of a coordinated brachytherapy schedule at San Juan-centric service providers; (4) limited credentialed radiotherapy machines island-wide; and (5) too few radiology medical physicists tasked to credential trial-specified positron emission tomography scanners island-wide. PR offers a unique opportunity to study overarching and tactical strategies for improving accrual to NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials. Interview findings support adding and re-tasking personnel for coordinated trial-eligible patient referral, accrual, and treatment.

NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project-1 Results: Decision Making in Breast Cancer Risk Reduction.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) reduce breast cancer risk. Adoption of SERMs as prevention medication remains low. This is the first study to quantify social, cultural, and psychologic factors driving decision making regarding SERM use in women counseled on breast cancer prevention options. A survey study was conducted with women counseled by a health care provider (HCP) about SERMs. A statistical comparison of responses was performed between those who decided to use and those who decided not to use SERMs. Independent factors associated with the decision were determined using logistic regression. Of 1,023 participants, 726 made a decision: 324 (44.6%) decided to take a SERM and 402 (55.4%) decided not to. The most important factor for deciding on SERM use was the HCP recommendation. Other characteristics associated with the decision included attitudes and perceptions regarding medication intake, breast cancer worry, trust in HCP, family members with blood clots, and others' experiences with SERMs. The odds of SERM intake when HCP recommended were higher for participants with a positive attitude toward taking medications than for those with a negative attitude (Pinteraction = 0.01). This study highlights the importance of social and cultural aspects for SERM decision making, most importantly personal beliefs and experiences. HCPs' recommendations play a statistically significant role in decision making and are more likely to be followed if in line with patients' attitudes. Results indicate the need for developing interventions for HCPs that not only focus on the presentation of medical information but, equally as important, on addressing patients' beliefs and experiences. Cancer Prev Res; 10(11); 625-34. ©2017 AACRSee related editorial by Crew, p. 609.