Baseline characteristics and recruitment for SWOG S1820: altering intake, managing bowel symptoms in survivors of rectal cancer (AIMS-RC).

PURPOSE: Many survivors of rectal cancer experience persistent bowel dysfunction. There are few evidence-based symptom management interventions to improve bowel control. The purpose of this study is to describe recruitment and pre-randomization baseline sociodemographic, health status, and clinical characteristics for SWOG S1820, a trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms in Rectal Cancer (AIMS-RC) intervention. METHODS: SWOG S1820 aimed to determine the preliminary efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of AIMS-RC, a symptom management intervention for bowel health, comparing intervention to attention control. Survivors with a history of cancers of the rectosigmoid colon or rectum, within 6-24 months of primary treatment completion, with a post-surgical permanent ostomy or anastomosis, and over 18 years of age were enrolled. Outcomes included total bowel function, low anterior resection syndrome, quality of life, motivation for managing bowel health, self-efficacy for managing symptoms, positive and negative affect, and study feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: The trial completed accrual over a 29-month period and enrolled 117 participants from 34 institutions across 17 states and one US Pacific territory. At baseline, most enrolled participants reported self-imposed diet adjustments after surgery, persistent dietary intolerances, and bowel discomfort post-treatment, with high levels of constipation and diarrhea (grades 1-4). CONCLUSIONS: SWOG S1820 was able to recruit, in a timely manner, a study cohort that is demographically representative of US survivors of rectal cancer. Baseline characteristics illustrate the connection between diet/eating and bowel symptoms post-treatment, with many participants reporting diet adjustments and persistent inability to be comfortable with dietary intake. GOV REGISTRATION DATE: 12/19/2019. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT#04205955.

SWOG S1820: A pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Bowel Symptoms Intervention in Survivors of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of rectal cancer experience persistent bowel dysfunction after treatments. Dietary interventions may be an effective approach for symptom management and posttreatment diet quality. SWOG S1820 was a pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms in Rectal Cancer (AIMS-RC) intervention for bowel dysfunction in survivors of rectal cancer. METHODS: Ninety-three posttreatment survivors were randomized to the AIMS-RC group (N = 47) or the Healthy Living Education attention control group (N = 46) after informed consent and completion of a prerandomization run-in. Outcome measures were completed at baseline and at 18 and 26 weeks postrandomization. The primary end point was total bowel function score, and exploratory end points included low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score, quality of life, dietary quality, motivation, self-efficacy, and positive/negative affect. RESULTS: Most participants were White and college educated, with a mean age of 55.2 years and median time since surgery of 13.1 months. There were no statistically significant differences in total bowel function score by group, with the AIMS-RC group demonstrating statistically significant improvements in the exploratory end points of LARS (p = .01) and the frequency subscale of the bowel function index (p = .03). The AIMS-RC group reported significantly higher acceptability of the study. CONCLUSIONS: SWOG S1820 did not provide evidence of benefit from the AIMS-RC intervention relative to the attention control. Select secondary end points did demonstrate improvements. The study was highly feasible and acceptable for participants in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Findings provide strong support for further refinement and effectiveness testing of the AIMS-RC intervention.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing.

PURPOSE: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE. RESULTS: Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%. CONCLUSION: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Universal Viral Screening of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the United States: A Cost-efficiency Evaluation.

Recommendations for universal screening of patients with cancer for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are inconsistent. A recent multisite screening study (S1204) from the SWOG Cancer Research Network found that a substantial number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer had previously unknown viral infections. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-efficiency of universal screening of patients with newly diagnosed cancer. We estimated the cost-efficiency of universal screening of new cancer cases for HBV, HCV, or HIV, expressed as cost per virus detected, from the health care payer perspective. The prevalence of each virus among this cohort was derived from S1204. Direct medical expenditures included costs associated with laboratory screening tests. Costs per case detected were estimated for each screening strategy. Secondary analysis examined the cost-efficiency of screening patients whose viral status at cancer diagnosis was unknown. Among the possible options for universal screening, screening for HBV alone ($581), HCV alone ($782), HBV and HCV ($631) and HBV, HCV, and HIV ($841) were most efficient in terms of cost per case detected. When screening was restricted to patients with unknown viral status, screening for HBV alone ($684), HBV and HCV ($872), HBV and HIV ($1,157), and all three viruses ($1,291) were most efficient in terms of cost per newly detected case. Efficient viral testing strategies represent a relatively modest addition to the overall cost of managing a patient with cancer. Screening for HBV, HCV, and HIV infections may be reasonable from both a budget and clinical standpoint. SIGNIFICANCE: Screening patients with cancer for HBV, HCV, and HIV is inconsistent in clinical practice despite national recommendations and known risks of complications from viral infection. Our study shows that while costs of viral screening strategies vary by choice of tests, they present a modest addition to the cost of managing a patient with cancer.

Surgical versus non-surgical management for patients with malignant bowel obstruction (S1316): a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant small bowel obstruction has a poor prognosis and is associated with multiple related symptoms. The optimal treatment approach is often unclear. We aimed to compare surgical versus non-surgical management with the aim to determine the optimal approach for managing malignant bowel obstruction. METHODS: S1316 was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial done within the National Cancer Trials Network at 30 hospital and cancer research centres in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Participants had an intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal primary cancer confirmed via pathological report and malignant bowel disease; were aged 18 years or older with a Zubrod performance status 0-2 within 1 week before admission; had a surgical indication; and treatment equipoise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgical or non-surgical treatment using a dynamic balancing algorithm, balancing on primary tumour type. Patients who declined consent for random assignment were offered a prospective observational patient choice pathway. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (good days) at 91 days. Analyses were based on intention-to-treat linear, logistic, and Cox regression models combining data from both pathways and adjusting for potential confounders. Treatment complications were assessed in all analysed patients in the study. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02270450. FINDINGS: From May 11, 2015, to April 27, 2020, 221 patients were enrolled (143 [65%] were female and 78 [35%] were male). There were 199 evaluable participants: 49 in the randomised pathway (24 surgery and 25 non-surgery) and 150 in the patient choice pathway (58 surgery and 92 non-surgery). No difference was seen between surgery and non-surgery for the primary outcome of good days: mean 42·6 days (SD 32·2) in the randomised surgery group, 43·9 days (29·5) in the randomised non-surgery group, 54·8 days (27·0) in the patient choice surgery group, and 52·7 days (30·7) in the patient choice non-surgery group (adjusted mean difference 2·9 additional good days in surgical versus non-surgical treatment [95% CI -5·5 to 11·3]; p=0·50). During their initial hospital stay, six participants died, five due to cancer progression (four patients from the randomised pathway, two in each treatment group, and one from the patient choice pathway, in the surgery group) and one due to malignant bowel obstruction treatment complications (patient choice pathway, non-surgery). The most common grade 3-4 malignant bowel obstruction treatment complication was anaemia (three [6%] patients in the randomised pathway, all in the surgical group, and five [3%] patients in the patient choice pathway, four in the surgical group and one in the non-surgical group). INTERPRETATION: In our study, whether patients received a surgical or non-surgical treatment approach did not influence good days during the first 91 days after registration. These findings should inform treatment decisions for patients hospitalised with malignant bowel obstruction. FUNDING: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Risk prediction of hepatitis B or C or HIV among newly diagnosed cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Screening for viral infection in cancer patients is inconsistent. A mechanism to readily identify cancer patients at increased risk of existing or prior viral infection could enhance screening efforts while reducing costs. METHODS: We identified factors associated with increased risk of past or chronic hepatitis virus B, hepatitis virus C, or HIV infection before initiation of systemic cancer therapy. Data were from a multicenter prospective cohort study of 3051 patients with newly diagnosed cancer (SWOG-S1204) enrolled between 2013 and 2017. Patients completed a survey with questions pertaining to personal history and behavioral, socioeconomic, and demographic risk factors for viral hepatitis or HIV. We derived a risk model to predict the presence of viral infection in a random set of 60% of participants using best subset selection. The derived model was validated in the remaining 40% of participants. Logistic regression was used. RESULTS: A model with 7 risk factors was identified, and a risk score with 4 levels was constructed. In the validation cohort, each increase in risk level was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk of viral positivity (odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 2.26 to 3.60, P < .001). Consistent findings were observed for individual viruses. Participants in the highest risk group (with >3 risk factors), comprised of 13.4% of participants, were 18 times more likely to be viral positive compared with participants with no risk factors (odds ratio = 18.18, 95% confidence interval = 8.00 to 41.3, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A risk-stratified screening approach using a limited set of questions could serve as an effective strategy to streamline screening for individuals at increased risk of viral infection.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Antiviral therapy use and related outcomes in patients with cancer and viral infections: results from SWOG S1204.

PURPOSE: Information is limited about adherence to practice guidelines in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or HIV infection receiving anticancer treatment. METHODS: Newly diagnosed adult cancer patients were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective cohort study (SWOG S1204) during 2013-2017 to evaluate the prevalence of HBV, HCV, or HIV in patients initiating anticancer treatment. At 6 months, records of virus-positive patients were reviewed for antiviral therapy use; anticancer treatment dose reduction; and HBV reactivation (elevated viral load). Categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of 3055 enrolled patients with viral testing, 230 had chronic or past HBV, HCV, or HIV with 6-month follow-up data (chronic HBV, 15 patients; past HBV, 158; HCV, 49; HIV, 30). Twenty percent (3/15) of chronic HBV and 11% (17/158) of past HBV patients were co-infected with HCV and/or HIV. Rates of antiviral therapy use by 6 months were as follows: chronic HBV, 85% (11/13); past HBV receiving anti-B cell therapy, 60% (3/5); past HBV receiving systemic anticancer therapy without anti-B cell therapy, 8% (8/105); HCV, 6% (2/35); and HIV, 90% (19/21). Among patients with available data, anticancer treatment dose was reduced in 1 of 145 patients with past HBV and 1 of 42 with HCV. HBV reactivation occurred in 1 of 15 patients with chronic HBV; this patient was not receiving antiviral therapy. CONCLUSION: Many patients with cancer and viral infections either do not receive guideline-recommended antiviral treatment or receive antiviral treatment that is not recommended in guidelines. Further education is needed to improve adherence to guidelines.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines. Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021. Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic. Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions. METHODS: The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems. RESULTS: The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

Change in plasma α-tocopherol associations with attenuated pulmonary function decline and with CYP4F2 missense variation.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin E (vitE) is hypothesized to attenuate age-related decline in pulmonary function. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between change in plasma vitE (∆vitE) and pulmonary function decline [forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1)] and examined genetic and nongenetic factors associated with ∆vitE. METHODS: We studied 1144 men randomly assigned to vitE in SELECT (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial). ∆vitE was the difference between baseline and year 3 vitE concentrations measured with GC-MS. FEV1 was measured longitudinally by spirometry. We genotyped 555 men (vitE-only arm) using the Illumina Expanded Multi-Ethnic Genotyping Array (MEGAex). We used mixed-effects linear regression modeling to examine the ∆vitE-FEV1 association. RESULTS: Higher ∆vitE was associated with lower baseline α-tocopherol (α-TOH), higher baseline γ-tocopherol, higher baseline free cholesterol, European ancestry (as opposed to African) (all P < 0.05), and the minor allele of a missense variant in cytochrome P450 family 4 subfamily F member 2 (CYP4F2) (rs2108622-T; 2.4 µmol/L higher ∆vitE, SE: 0.8 µmol/L; P = 0.0032). Higher ∆vitE was associated with attenuated FEV1 decline, with stronger effects in adherent participants (≥80% of supplements consumed): a statistically significant ∆vitE × time interaction (P = 0.014) indicated that a 1-unit increase in ∆vitE was associated with a 2.2-mL/y attenuation in FEV1 decline (SE: 0.9 mL/y). The effect size for 1 SD higher ∆vitE (+4 µmol/mmol free-cholesterol-adjusted α-TOH) was roughly one-quarter of the effect of 1 y of aging, but in the opposite direction. The ∆vitE-FEV1 association was similar in never smokers (2.4-mL/y attenuated FEV1 decline, SE: 1.0 mL/y; P = 0.017, n = 364), and current smokers (2.8-mL/y, SE: 1.6 mL/y; P = 0.079, n = 214), but there was little to no effect in former smokers (-0.64-mL/y, SE: 0.9 mL/y; P = 0.45, n = 564). CONCLUSIONS: Greater response to vitE supplementation was associated with attenuated FEV1 decline. The response to supplementation differed by rs2108622 such that individuals with the C allele, compared with the T allele, may need a higher dietary intake to reach the same plasma vitE concentration.

SWOG S1820: Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms for bowel dysfunction in survivors of Rectal Cancer (The AIMS-RC intervention trial).

OBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol of SWOG S1820, a trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms intervention for bowel dysfunction in survivors of Rectal Cancer (AIMS-RC). DESIGN: SWOG S1820 is a multi-site, randomized trial of 94 post-treatment survivors of rectal cancer, comparing the intervention and attention control arms. SETTING: Affiliated institutions of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported National Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) and the National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN). PARTICIPANTS: Survivors of rectal cancer who are between 6 and 24 months after treatment completion. INTERVENTION: AIMS-RC is a 17-week, 10 session telephone coaching program to help survivors of rectal cancer track their symptoms and improve their diets for better health and bowel function. It includes telephone-based coaching, resource manual, and personalized text/email messaging for motivation in between the telephone sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bowel function, low anterior resection syndrome score, quality of life (QOL), dietary quality, motivation, self-efficacy, positive/negative affect, feasibility, adherence, retention, acceptability. ANALYSIS: Thirty-seven participants per arm (74 total) provide 80% power to detect this 0.5 standard deviation effect size, based on a two-sample t-test with a 1-sided alpha = 0.1. A total of 94 randomized participants will be accrued to account for 7% ineligibility and 15% attrition at 6 months.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Long-Term Nonadherence to Aromatase Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is common and increases risk of breast cancer (BC) recurrence. We analyzed factors associated with nonadherence among patients enrolled in S1105, a randomized trial of text messaging. METHODS: At enrollment, patients were required to have been on an adjuvant AI for at least 30 days and were asked about financial, medication, and demographic factors. They completed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) representing pain (Brief Pain Inventory), endocrine symptoms (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Symptoms), and beliefs about medications (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medicine; Brief Medication Questionnaire). Our primary endpoint was AI nonadherence at 36 months, defined as urine AI metabolite assay of less than 10 ng/mL or no submitted specimen. We evaluated the association between individual baseline characteristics and nonadherence with logistic regression. A composite risk score reflecting the number of statistically significant baseline characteristics was examined. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 702 patients; median age was 60.9 years. Overall, 35.9% patients were nonadherent at 36 months. Younger patients (younger than age 65 years) were more nonadherent (38.8% vs 28.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 2.16; P = .02). Fourteen baseline PRO scales were each statistically significantly associated with nonadherence. In a composite risk model categorized into quartile levels, each increase in risk level was associated with a 46.5% increase in the odds of nonadherence (OR = 1.47, 95% CI =1.26 to 1.70; P < .001). The highest-risk patients were more than 3 times more likely to be nonadherent than the lowest-risk patients (OR = 3.14, 95% CI = 1.97 to 5.02; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of multiple baseline PRO-specified risk factors was statistically significantly associated with AI nonadherence. The use of these assessments can help identify patients for targeted interventions to improve adherence.

Use of Aspirin and Statins in Relation to Inflammation in Benign Prostate Tissue in the Placebo Arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Aspirin and statin use may lower the risk of advanced/fatal prostate cancer, possibly by reducing intraprostatic inflammation. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the association of aspirin and statin use with the presence and extent of intraprostatic inflammation, and the abundance of specific immune cell types, in benign prostate tissue from a subset of men from the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. Men were classified as aspirin or statin users if they reported use at baseline or during the 7-year trial. Presence and extent of inflammation were assessed, and markers of specific immune cell types (CD4, CD8, FoxP3, CD68, and c-KIT) were scored, in slides from end-of-study prostate biopsies taken irrespective of clinical indication, per trial protocol. Logistic regression was used to estimate associations between medication use and inflammation measures, adjusted for potential confounders. Of 357 men included, 61% reported aspirin use and 32% reported statin use. Prevalence and extent of inflammation were not associated with medication use. However, aspirin users were more likely to have low FoxP3, a T regulatory cell marker [OR, 5.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-27.07], and statin users were more likely to have low CD68, a macrophage marker (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.81-3.27). If confirmed, these results suggest that these medications may alter the immune milieu of the prostate, which could potentially mediate effects of these medications on advanced/fatal prostate cancer risk.

Randomized Trial of Text Messaging to Reduce Early Discontinuation of Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: SWOG S1105.

PURPOSE: Nonadherence to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for breast cancer is common and increases the risk of recurrence. Text messaging increases adherence to medications for chronic conditions. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial of text messaging (TM) versus no text messaging (No-TM) at 40 sites in the United States. Eligible patients were postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer taking an AI for > 30 days with a planned duration of ≥ 36 months. Test messages were sent twice a week over 36 months. Content themes focused on overcoming barriers to medication adherence and included cues to action, statements related to medication efficacy, and reinforcements of the recommendation to take AIs. Both groups were assessed every 3 months. The primary outcome was time to adherence failure (AF), where AF was defined as urine AI metabolite assay results satisfying one of the following: < 10 ng/mL, undetectable, or no submitted specimen. A stratified log-rank test was conducted. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 724 patients were registered between May 2012 and September 2013, among whom,702 patients (348 in the text-messaging arm and 354 in the no-text-messaging arm) were eligible at baseline. Observed adherence at 36 months was 55.5% for TM and 55.4% for No-TM. The primary analysis showed no difference in time to AF by arm (3-year AF: 81.9% TM v 85.6% No-TM; HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.05]; P = .18). Multiple time to AF sensitivity analyses showed similar nonsignificant results. Three-year self-reported time to AF (10.4% v 10.3%; HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.98]; P = .57) and site-reported time to AF (21.9% v 18.9%; HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.86 to 2.01]; P = .21) also did not differ by arm. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this was the first large, long-term, randomized trial of an intervention directed at improving AI adherence. We found high rates of AI AF. Twice-weekly text reminders did not improve adherence to AIs. Improving long-term adherence will likely require personalized and sustained behavioral interventions.

Intellectual Equipoise and Challenges: Accruing Patients With Advanced Cancer to a Trial Randomizing to Surgical or Nonsurgical Management (SWOG S1316).

BACKGROUND: Prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine optimal treatment approaches for palliative care problems such as malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). Randomization poses unique issues for such studies, especially with divergent treatment approaches and varying levels of equipoise. We report our experience accruing randomized patients to the Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Malignant Bowel Obstruction (SWOG S1316) study, comparing surgical and nonsurgical management of MBO. METHODS: Patients with MBO who were surgical candidates and had treatment equipoise were accrued and offered randomization to surgical or nonsurgical management. Patients choosing nonrandomization were offered prospective observation. Trial details are listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT #02270450). An accrual algorithm was developed to enhance enrollment. RESULTS: Accrual is ongoing with 176 patients enrolled. Most (89%) patients chose nonrandomization, opting for nonsurgical management. Of 25 sites that have accrued to this study, 6 enrolled patients on the randomization arm. Approximately 59% (20/34) of the randomization accrual goal has been achieved. Patient-related factors and clinician bias have been the most prevalent reasons for lack of randomization. An algorithm was developed from clinician experience to aid randomization. Using principles in this tool, repeated physician conversations discussing treatment options and goals of care, and a supportive team-approach has helped increase accrual. CONCLUSIONS: Experience gained from the S1316 study can aid future palliative care trials. Although difficult, it is possible to randomize patients to palliative studies by giving clinicians clear recommendations utilizing an algorithm of conversation, allotment of necessary time to discuss the trial, and encouragement to overcome internal bias.

Opportunities and challenges in incorporating ancillary studies into a cancer prevention randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prostate cancer prevention study funded by the National Cancer Institute and conducted by SWOG (Southwest Oncology Group). A total of 35,533 men were assigned randomly to one of four treatment groups (vitamin E + placebo, selenium + placebo, vitamin E + selenium, placebo + placebo). At the time of the trial's development, NIH had invested substantial resources in evaluating the potential benefits of these antioxidants. To capitalize on the knowledge gained from following a large cohort of healthy, aging males on the effects of selenium and/or vitamin E, ancillary studies with other disease endpoints were solicited. METHODS: Four ancillary studies were added. Each drew from the same population but had independent objectives and an endpoint other than prostate cancer. These studies fell into two categories: those prospectively enrolling and following participants (studies of Alzheimer's disease and respiratory function) and those requiring a retrospective medical record review after a reported event (cataracts/age-related macular degeneration and colorectal screening). An examination of the challenges and opportunities of adding ancillary studies is provided. The impact of the ancillary studies on adherence to SELECT was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: While the addition of ancillary studies appears to have improved participant adherence to the primary trial, this did not come without added complexity. Activation of the ancillary studies happened after the SELECT randomizations had begun resulting in accrual problems to some of the studies. Study site participation in the ancillary trials varied greatly and depended on the interest of the study site principal investigator. Procedures for each were integrated into the primary trial and all monitoring was done by the SELECT Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. The impact of the early closure of the primary trial was different for each of the ancillary trials. CONCLUSIONS: The ancillary studies allowed study sites to broaden the research opportunities for their participants. Their implementation was efficient because of the established infrastructure of the primary trial. Implementation of these ancillary trials took substantial planning and coordination but enriched the overall primary trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00006392-S0000 : Selenium and Vitamin E in Preventing Prostate Cancer (SELECT) (4 October 2000). NCT00780689-S0000A :  Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium (PREADVISE) (25 June 2002). NCT00784225-S0000B : Vitamin E and/or Selenium in Preventing Cataract and Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Men on SELECT SWOG-S0000 (SEE) (31 October 2008). NCT00706121-S0000D : Effect of Vitamin E and/or Selenium on Colorectal Polyps in Men Enrolled on SELECT Trial SWOG-S0000 (ACP) (26 June 2008). NCT00063453-S0000C : Vitamin E and/or Selenium in Preventing Loss of Lung Function in Older Men Enrolled on SELECT Clinical Trial SWOG-S0000 (26 June 2003).

Peripheral Zone Inflammation Is Not Strongly Associated With Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Incidence and Progression in the Placebo Arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial .

BACKGROUND: Intraprostatic inflammation has been associated with lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) progression. However, prior studies used tissue removed for clinical indications, potentially skewing inflammation extent or biasing the association. We, therefore, evaluated inflammation and LUTS incidence and progression in men who underwent biopsy of the prostate peripheral zone irrespective of indication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed nested case-control sets in men in the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who were free of clinical BPH and had a protocol-directed year 7 biopsy. Cases had baseline IPSS <15 and year 7 IPSS of 8-14 (low, N = 47), 15-19 (incident moderate, N = 42), or ≥20 (incident high, N = 44). Controls had baseline and year 7 IPSS <8 (N = 41). For progression from IPSS <8, cases had baseline to year 7 IPSS slope >75th percentile (N = 46) and controls had a slope <25th percentile (N = 45). For progression from IPSS = 8-14, cases had a slope >75th percentile (N = 46) and controls had a slope <25th percentile (N = 46). We reviewed three H&E-stained biopsy cores per man to determine prevalence of ≥1 core with inflammation and mean extent (%) of tissue area with inflammation. RESULTS: Inflammation prevalence in low cases (64%) was similar to controls (66%), but higher in moderate (69%) and high (73%) cases (P-trend = 0.4). Extent did not differ across LUTS categories (P-trend = 0.5). For progression from IPSS < 8, prevalence (65%, P = 0.9) and extent (2.5%, P = 0.8) in cases did not differ from controls (64%, 2.7%). For progression from IPSS 8-14, prevalence in cases (52%) was lower than in controls (78%, P = 0.009), while extent was higher in cases (5.3%) than controls (3.6%), especially in men with ≥1 core with inflammation (10.1% versus 4.6%, P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Peripheral zone intraprostatic inflammation is not strongly associated with LUTS incidence or progression. Prostate 76:1399-1408, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.