Joint pain and falls among women with breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Arthralgia is common among women with breast cancer on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Pain is associated with falls in the general population; however, little is known about the relationship between arthralgia and falls among AI users. Our objective was to determine whether joint pain severity and interference predict future falls. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of postmenopausal women with stage I-III estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who were prescribed a third-generation AI. Arthralgia symptoms were measured at baseline using a modified version of the Brief Pain Inventory. Fall occurrence was obtained at 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 667 participants (median age 63 years, interquartile range 57-69 years), 232 (35%, 95% CI 31 to 39%) reported falls 12-24 months after baseline. Among women who fell, 65 (28%) reported seeking medical assistance. After controlling for multiple fall risk factors, we found significant non-linear associations between baseline joint pain severity and risk of falls (p = 0.001). Women with joint pain severity scores ≥ 4 had a more than twofold increase in fall risk compared to those without pain (41% vs. 20%). We observed a similar relationship for pain interference and fall risk (p < 0.001). Fewer than half of participants reported having been asked about falls in the past 12 months by their primary care physician (44%) or oncologist (36%). CONCLUSION: Joint pain increases the risk of falls among women with breast cancer on adjuvant AI therapy. Health care providers should evaluate and manage arthralgia symptoms and implement fall-prevention strategies for those who are at increased risk.

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

IMPORTANCE: To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r=0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P≤.006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

The cancer psychosocial care matrix: a community-derived evaluative tool for designing quality psychosocial cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVE: Although the Institute of Medicine provided a vision for effective psychosocial care for cancer survivors, limited guidance exists regarding the essential components of comprehensive care or progressive steps for implementing each component. This paper describes the development of a unique tool for assessing capacity to provide quality psychosocial care to cancer survivors and the results of the first implementation of this tool in community settings. METHODS: The psychosocial working group of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix assessment tool. All NCCCP sites (n=30, enrolled in 2007 nd 2010) completed the matrix indicating their capacity for providing psychosocial care at entry into NCCCP ('baseline') after 2 years of NCCCP participation (2007 sites only) and within the coming year ('future aspirations'). RESULTS: At baseline, matrix responses reflected few or no systematic processes in place for most components of comprehensive psychosocial care. However, reported capacity to deliver specific components improved at 2 years post-NCCCP entry for the 2007 sites and in all NCCCP sites' future aspirations. CONCLUSIONS: With growing demand on cancer centers to meet new metrics of quality care, the psychosocial matrix can help centers systematically identify and develop steps to address gap areas in their capacity to meet these new standards. The Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix appears to enable evaluation of psychosocial programs, may promote intentions to improve psychosocial services, and can facilitate communication of 'best practices' among cancer centers.