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.

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.

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.

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology.

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research.

Preliminary results of centralized HER2 testing in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): NSABP B-43.

NSABP B-43 is the first prospective, randomized phase III multi-institution clinical trial targeting high-risk, HER2-positive DCIS. It compares whole breast irradiation alone with WBI given concurrently with trastuzumab in women with HER2-positive DCIS treated by lumpectomy. The primary aim is to determine if trastuzumab plus radiation will reduce in-breast tumor recurrence. HER2-positive DCIS was previously estimated at >50 %, occurring primarily in ER-negative, comedo-type DCIS of high nuclear grade. There has been no documented centralized multi-institutional HER2 analysis of DCIS. NSABP B-43 provides a unique opportunity to evaluate this in a large cohort of DCIS patients. Patients undergoing lumpectomy for DCIS without evidence of an invasive component are eligible. A central review of each patient's pure DCIS lesion is carried out by immunohistochemistry analysis. If the lesion is 2+, FISH analysis is performed. Patients whose tumors are HER2 3+ or FISH-positive are randomly assigned to receive two doses of trastuzumab during WBI or WBI alone. NSABP B-43 opened 11/9/08. As of 7/31/2013, 5,861 patients have had specimens received centrally, and 5,645 of those had analyzable blocks; 1,969 (34.9 %) were HER2 positive. A total of 1,428 patients have been accrued, 1,137 (79.6 %) of whom have follow-up information. The average follow-up time for the 1,137 patients is 23.3 months. No grade 4 or 5 toxicity has been observed. In NSABP B-43 the HER2-positive rate for pure DCIS among patients undergoing breast-preserving surgery is 34.9 %, lower than the previously reported rate. No trastuzumab-related safety signals have been observed. Interest in this trial has been robust.