Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity.

OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts. METHODS: We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability. RESULTS: The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %). CONCLUSION: OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

Provider motivations and barriers to cancer clinical trial screening, referral, and operations: Findings from a survey.

BACKGROUND: Provider and institutional practices have been shown to have a large impact on cancer clinical trial enrollment. Understanding provider perspectives on screening for trial eligibility is necessary to improve enrollment. METHODS: A questionnaire about incentives, barriers, process tools, and infrastructure related to opening trials and referring patients to onsite and offsite trials was administered to diverse stakeholders, including professional societies, advocacy organizations, and industry networks. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings. RESULTS: Overall, 693 responses were received, primarily from physicians (42.7%) and nurses (35.6%) employed at hospital health systems (43.7%) and academic centers (36.5%). Approximately half (49.2%) screened all patients for onsite clinical trials with screening typically done by manual chart review (81.9%). The greatest incentive reported for offering trials was providing the best treatment options for patients (67.7%). Contracting and paperwork (48.5%) were the greatest barriers to opening more onsite trials. Offsite referrals were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for trial eligibility is a largely manual and ad hoc process, with screening and referral to offsite trials occurring infrequently. Administrative and infrastructure barriers commonly prevent sites from opening more onsite trials. These findings suggest that automated trial screening tools built into workflows that screen in a site-agnostic manner could result in more frequent trial eligibility screening, especially for offsite trials. With recent momentum, in part in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to improve clinical trial efficiencies and broaden access and participant diversity, implementing tools to improve screening and referral processes is timely and essential. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: There are many factors that contribute to low adult enrollment in cancer clinical trials, but previous research has indicated that provider and institutional barriers are the largest contributors to low cancer clinical trial enrollment. In this survey, we sought to gain insight into cancer clinical trial enrollment practices from the perspective of health care providers such as physicians and nurses. We found that only approximately half of respondents indicated their institution systematically screens their patients for clinical trials and this process is manual and time consuming. Furthermore, we found that providers infrequently search for and refer patients to clinical trials at other sites. Creating better screening methods could improve enrollment in clinical trials.

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.

An Assessment of the Feasibility and Utility of an ACCC-ASCO Implicit Bias Training Program to Enhance Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Cancer trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity in the population of people with cancer in the United States. As a result of multiple system-, patient-, and provider-level factors, including implicit bias, cancer clinical trials are not consistently offered to all potentially eligible patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASCO and ACCC evaluated the utility (pre- and post-test knowledge changes) and feasibility (completion rates, curriculum satisfaction metrics, survey questions, and interviews) of a customized online training program combined with facilitated peer-to-peer discussion designed to help research teams identify their own implicit biases and develop strategies to mitigate them. Discussion focused on (1) specific elements of the training modules; (2) how to apply lessons learned; and (3) key considerations for developing a facilitation guide to support peer-to-peer discussions in cancer clinical research settings. We evaluated discussion via a qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Participant completion rate was high: 49 of 50 participating cancer programs completed training; 126 of 129 participating individuals completed the training (98% response rate); and 119 completed the training and evaluations (92% response rate). Training increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 19%-45% across key concepts (eg, causes of health disparities) and increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 10%-31% about strategies/actions to address implicit bias and diversity concerns in cancer clinical trials. Knowledge increases were sustained at 6 weeks. Qualitative evaluation validated the utility and feasibility of facilitated peer-to-peer discussion. CONCLUSION: The pilot implementation of the training program demonstrated excellent utility and feasibility. Our evaluation affirms that an online training designed to raise awareness about implicit bias and develop strategies to mitigate biases among cancer research teams is feasible and can be readily implemented in cancer research settings.

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.

Recommendations to Streamline and Standardize Clinical Trial Site Feasibility Assessments: An ASCO Research Statement.

PURPOSE: Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. METHODS: An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. RESULTS: Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

More than a box to check: Research sponsor and clinical investigator perspectives on making GCP training relevant.

BACKGROUND: Good clinical practice (GCP) training is the industry expectation for ensuring quality conduct of registrational clinical trials. However, concerns exist about whether the current structure and delivery of GCP training sufficiently prepares clinical investigators and their delegates to conduct clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 13 clinical investigators and 10 research sponsors to 1) examine characteristics of the quality conduct of sponsored clinical trials, including critical tasks and concerns perceived as essential for trial quality, 2) identify key knowledge and skills required to perform critical tasks, and 3) identify gaps and redundancies in GCP training and areas of improvement to ensure quality conduct of clinical trials. Data were examined using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: The top three tasks identified as critical for the quality conduct of clinical trials were obtaining informed consent, ensuring protocol compliance, and protecting participants' health and safety. Respondents acknowledged that GCP principles address each of these critical tasks but also described many challenges and burdens of GCP training, including high training frequency and repetitive content. Respondents suggested moving beyond GCP training as a mere check-box activity by making it more effective, engaging, and interactive. They also emphasized that applying GCP principles in a real-world, skills-based environment would increase the perceived relevance of GCP training. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that although investigators and sponsors recognize that GCP training addresses tasks critical to the quality conduct of clinical trials, the need for significant improvement in the design, content, and presentation of GCP training remains.

Early Impact of COVID-19 on the Conduct of Oncology Clinical Trials and Long-Term Opportunities for Transformation: Findings From an American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial-related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

Assessing an ASCO Decision Aid for Improving the Accuracy and Attribution of Serious Adverse Event Reporting From Investigators to Sponsors.

PURPOSE: Investigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid. METHODS: A preliminary study with crossover design was conducted in a convenience sample. Physician-investigators and research staff were randomly assigned to receive case studies. Case studies were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the Decision Aid. Participants completed a feedback survey about the Decision Aid. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. Power to detect associations was limited because of a small sample size. RESULTS: The Decision Aid did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.46), but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing an SAE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.15 to 11.4). Most of the 29 participants reported that the Decision Aid was helpful (93%) and improved decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use the Decision Aid in practice (83%). CONCLUSION: The Decision Aid shows promise as a method to improve the quality of SAE attribution, which may improve the detection of valid safety signals and reduce the administrative burden of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports. Study of the Decision Aid in a larger sample with analysis stratified by participant role and SAE reporting experience would further assess the tool's impact.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

PURPOSE.­: Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. METHODS.­: An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including preanalytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. RESULTS.­: The literature search identified 1338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. CONCLUSIONS.­: The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens, and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity or clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, reevaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

Purpose Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from ASCO and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including pre-analytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. Results The literature search identified 1,338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. Conclusion The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity and clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, re-evaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. METHODS: An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. CONCLUSION: Centralized CAs for multisite trials-using standardized tools and templates-are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

Challenges With Research Contract Negotiations in Community-Based Cancer Research.

PURPOSE: Community-based research programs face many barriers to participation in clinical trials. Although the majority of people with cancer are diagnosed and treated in the community setting, only roughly 3% are enrolled onto clinical trials. Research contract and budget negotiations have been consistently identified as time consuming and a barrier to participation in clinical trials. ASCO's Community Research Forum conducted a survey about specific challenges of research contract and budget negotiation processes in community-based research settings. The goal was to ultimately identify potential solutions to these barriers. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 780 community-based physician investigators and research staff. The survey included questions to provide insight into contract and budget negotiation processes and perceptions about related barriers. RESULTS: A total of 77% of the 150 respondents acknowledged barriers in the process. Respondents most frequently identified budget-related issues (n = 133), inefficiencies in the process (n = 80), or legal review and negotiation issues (n = 70). Of the respondents, 44.1% indicated that contract research organizations made the contract negotiations process harder for their research program, and only 5% believed contract research organizations made the process easier. The contract negotiations process is perceived to be impeded by sponsors through underestimation of costs, lack of flexibility with the contract language, and excessive delays. CONCLUSION: Improving clinical trial activation processes and reducing inefficiencies would be beneficial to all interested stakeholders, including patients who may ultimately stand to benefit from participation in clinical trials. The following key recommendations were made: standardization of contracts and negotiation processes to promulgate transparency and efficiencies, improve sponsor processes to minimize burden on sites, create and promote use of contract templates and best practices, and provide education and consultation.

Assessing Clinical Trial-Associated Workload in Community-Based Research Programs Using the ASCO Clinical Trial Workload Assessment Tool.

PURPOSE: Clinical research program managers are regularly faced with the quandary of determining how much of a workload research staff members can manage while they balance clinical practice and still achieve clinical trial accrual goals, maintain data quality and protocol compliance, and stay within budget. A tool was developed to measure clinical trial-associated workload, to apply objective metrics toward documentation of work, and to provide clearer insight to better meet clinical research program challenges and aid in balancing staff workloads. A project was conducted to assess the feasibility and utility of using this tool in diverse research settings. METHODS: Community-based research programs were recruited to collect and enter clinical trial-associated monthly workload data into a web-based tool for 6 consecutive months. Descriptive statistics were computed for self-reported program characteristics and workload data, including staff acuity scores and number of patient encounters. RESULTS: Fifty-one research programs that represented 30 states participated. Median staff acuity scores were highest for staff with patients enrolled in studies and receiving treatment, relative to staff with patients in follow-up status. Treatment trials typically resulted in higher median staff acuity, relative to cancer control, observational/registry, and prevention trials. Industry trials exhibited higher median staff acuity scores than trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, academic institutions, or others. CONCLUSION: The results from this project demonstrate that trial-specific acuity measurement is a better measure of workload than simply counting the number of patients. The tool was shown to be feasible and useable in diverse community-based research settings.

ASCO's Community Research Forum: addressing challenges of community-based research from the grass roots.

ASCO's Community Research Forum is a solution-oriented venue for community research sites to overcome barriers to conducting clinical trials. The key objectives of the Forum are to (1) convene community-based researchers to identify challenges to conducting research that ASCO can address, (2) develop solution-oriented projects to address these challenges to facilitate clinical trial participation in community research settings, and (3) shape ASCO programs and policies to support members engaged in community research. The Community Research Forum holds an annual in-person meeting that convenes physician investigators, research administrators, research nurses, and clinical research associates from community-based research programs and practices. To meet identified needs, the Community Research Forum has developed the ASCO Clinical Trial Workload Assessment Tool and the ASCO Research Program Quality Assessment Tool. Both of these tools will be available to the public in 2014. The Forum is currently exploring the concept and potential metrics of a research certification program to formally assess community-based research programs, and to identify gaps and areas to improve the program in order to meet quality standards. The Community Research Forum's website aims to serve as a go-to resource for community-based physician investigators and research staff. The Community Research Forum will continue to provide a forum for community-based researchers to network, share challenges, and develop initiatives that provide solutions and facilitate the conduct of clinical trials.

Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To update the 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer (BC) risk reduction. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published from June 2007 through June 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Collaboration Library. Primary outcome of interest was BC incidence (invasive and noninvasive). Secondary outcomes included BC mortality, adverse events, and net health benefits. Guideline recommendations were revised based on an Update Committee's review of the literature. RESULTS: Nineteen articles met the selection criteria. Six chemoprevention agents were identified: tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, exemestane, and anastrozole. RECOMMENDATIONS: In women at increased risk of BC age ≥ 35 years, tamoxifen (20 mg per day for 5 years) should be discussed as an option to reduce the risk of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive BC. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene (60 mg per day for 5 years) and exemestane (25 mg per day for 5 years) should also be discussed as options for BC risk reduction. Those at increased BC risk are defined as individuals with a 5-year projected absolute risk of BC ≥ 1.66% (based on the National Cancer Institute BC Risk Assessment Tool or an equivalent measure) or women diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ. Use of other selective ER modulators or other aromatase inhibitors to lower BC risk is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the option of chemoprevention among women at increased BC risk. The discussion should include the specific risks and benefits associated with each chemopreventive agent.

Psychosocial determinants of out of school activity participation for children with and without physical disabilities.

Psychosocial determinants of children's out of school participation were examined, using secondary analyses of data from 427 children with physical disabilities (from 12 service locations in Ontario Canada) and 354 children without disabilities, ages 6 to 14. For both groups of children, hierarchical regression analyses indicated that psychosocial variables added significant incremental variance (6% to 14%) to the prediction of active physical intensity and social activity enjoyment, beyond that accounted for by family income, child age and sex, and physical functioning. As well, there were significant psychosocial determinants, with medium to large effect sizes. Athletic competence and hyperactivity had specific effects on active physical activities and social activities, respectively, for both groups of children. Disability-specific determinants included social acceptance, emotional functioning, and peer difficulties (only significant for children with disabilities). It was concluded that psychosocial variables play an important role in children's enjoyment and intensity of participation in leisure activities.