"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Of the nearly 50,000 women in the United States who undergo treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) annually, many may not benefit from treatment. To better understand the impact of a DCIS diagnosis, patients self-identified as having had DCIS were engaged regarding their experience. METHODS: In July 2014, a web-based survey was administered through the Susan Love Army of Women breast cancer listserv. The survey included open-ended questions designed to assess patients' perspectives about DCIS diagnosis and treatment. Deductive and inductive codes were applied to the responses; common themes were summarized. RESULTS: Among the 1832 women included in the analytic sample, the median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Four primary themes were identified: 1) uncertainty surrounding a DCIS diagnosis, 2) uncertainty about DCIS treatment, 3) concern about treatment side effects, and 4) concern about recurrence and/or developing invasive breast cancer. When diagnosed, participants were often uncertain about whether they had cancer or not and whether they should be considered a "survivor." Uncertainty about treatment manifested as questioning the appropriateness of the amount of treatment received. Participants expressed concern about the "cancer spreading" or becoming invasive and that they were not necessarily "doing enough" to prevent recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, national sample, participants with a history of DCIS reported confusion and concern about the diagnosis and treatment, which caused worry and significant uncertainty. Developing strategies to improve patient and provider communications regarding the nature of DCIS and acknowledging gaps in the current knowledge of management options should be a priority.

Do you mind if I record?: Perceptions and practice regarding patient requests to record clinic visits in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Audio recordings of oncology clinic discussions can help patients retain and understand information about their disease and treatment decisions. Access to this tool relies on acceptance of recordings by oncologists. This is the first study to evaluate experience and attitudes of oncologists toward patients recording clinic visits. METHODS: Medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists from 5 US cancer centers and community affiliates were surveyed to evaluate clinicians' experience, beliefs, and practices regarding patient-initiated recordings. RESULTS: Among 360 oncologists (69% response rate), virtually all (93%) have experienced patients seeking to record visits. Although 75% are comfortable with recording, 25% are uncomfortable and 56% report concerns ranging from less thorough discussions to legal liability. Most (85%) always agree when patients ask to record, but 15% never or selectively allow recording. Although 51% believe recording is positive for the patient-physician relationship, a sizable minority report that it can lead to less detailed conversations (28%) or avoidance of difficult topics, including prognosis (33%). Views did not vary based on subspecialty, practice setting, or geographic region, but older age and years in practice were associated with more positive views of recording. The majority of clinicians (72%) desire institutional policies to govern guidelines about recordings. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists are comfortable with patient requests to record visits, but a sizable minority remain uncomfortable, and access to recording varies solely on physician preference. This difference in care delivery may benefit from institutional policies that promote access while addressing legitimate physician concerns over privacy and appropriate use of recordings.

Community needs, concerns, and perceptions about health research: findings from the clinical and translational science award sentinel network.

OBJECTIVES: We used results generated from the first study of the National Institutes of Health Sentinel Network to understand health concerns and perceptions of research among underrepresented groups such as women, the elderly, racial/ethnic groups, and rural populations. METHODS: Investigators at 5 Sentinel Network sites and 2 community-focused national organizations developed a common assessment tool used by community health workers to assess research perceptions, health concerns, and conditions. RESULTS: Among 5979 individuals assessed, the top 5 health concerns were hypertension, diabetes, cancer, weight, and heart problems; hypertension was the most common self-reported condition. Levels of interest in research participation ranged from 70.1% among those in the "other" racial/ethnic category to 91.0% among African Americans. Overall, African Americans were more likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups to be interested in studies requiring blood samples (82.6%), genetic samples (76.9%), or medical records (77.2%); staying overnight in a hospital (70.5%); and use of medical equipment (75.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Top health concerns were consistent across geographic areas. African Americans reported more willingness to participate in research even if it required blood samples or genetic testing.

Patient advocates' role in clinical trials: perspectives from Cancer and Leukemia Group B investigators and advocates.

BACKGROUND: Patient advocates are increasingly involved in cooperative group trials, single-institution cancer programs, and peer-review of research applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role and value of patient advocates from the perspective of Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) advocates and investigators. METHODS: An online survey was sent to current and past (within 5 years) patient advocates and investigators. RESULTS.: Response rates were 72.7% (16 of 22) for advocates and 56.4% (102 of 181) for investigators. Patient advocates were more likely than investigators to report the following: the clinical trial process benefited from advocate involvement on committees (100% of advocates vs 72.1% of investigators; P < .05), advocates contribute to protocol development (92.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P < .001), the cultural appropriateness of protocols (21.4% vs 10.4%, respectively; P < .05), advocates assist with patient accrual (78.6% vs 23.4%, respectively; P < .001), and advocates add value to concept development and protocol review (100% vs 63.2%, respectively; P < .001). Over half of advocates and investigators reported gaps in patient advocate knowledge and suggested that additional clinical trials training was needed. To improve clinical trials, advocates suggested their earlier involvement in protocol development and increased support from investigators. CALGB investigators recommended improving patient advocate selection and communication skills training: CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patient advocates and investigators perceived benefits from advocate involvement in the clinical trials process; patient advocates placed more value on their role than investigators. The current results indicated that strategies to improve advocacy training and advocate-investigator communication may further enhance the role of patient advocates, and future studies that clarify the role of advocates in the prioritization and development of protocol, consent, and education materials, and on patient accrual, are warranted.

Ethical aspects of participation in the database of genotypes and phenotypes of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: the Cancer and Leukemia Group B Experience.

BACKGROUND: The rapid pace of genetics research, coupled with evolving standards for informed consent, can create ethical challenges regarding future use of tissue or information from completed clinical trials. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) Oncology Cooperative Group was faced with an ethical dilemma regarding sharing genetic data from a completed genome-wide association study (GWAS) that was conducted as part of a large, multicenter breast cancer clinical trial with a national database: the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes National Center for Biotechnology Information (dbGaP). METHODS: The CALGB Ethics Committee conducted a series of multidisciplinary meetings and teleconferences involving patient advocates, bioethicists, clinical researchers, and clinical oncologists to evaluate the ethical issues raised by this case and to identify lessons for improving informed consent to future genetics research in oncology trials. RESULTS: The Ethics Committee recommended that GWAS data be provided to dbGaP consistent with documented consent for future use of tissue among trial participants. Ethical issues, including adequacy of informed consent to future research, limitations of privacy in modern genetics research, the potential impact of population-based genetics research on health disparities, and recontact of research participants for clinical care or further research, were identified as major ethical considerations in this area. CONCLUSIONS: Although modern standards for informed consent should not prohibit research or sharing of data consistent with participant's intent and the public interest, there is an urgent need for national consensus on the appropriate use of archived tissue and standardized informed consent for future research among cancer clinical trial participants.

Biomarkers for Adjuvant Endocrine and Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update recommendations on appropriate use of breast cancer biomarker assay results to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy decisions in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: An updated literature search identified randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies published from January 2016 to October 2021. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert Panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: The search identified 24 studies informing the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians may use Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and EndoPredict to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy in patients who are postmenopausal or age > 50 years with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+ and HER2-) breast cancer that is node-negative or with 1-3 positive nodes. Prosigna and BCI may be used in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. In premenopausal patients, clinicians may use Oncotype in patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. Current data suggest that premenopausal patients with 1-3 positive nodes benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic assay result. There are no data on use of genomic tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ≥ 4 positive nodes. Ki67 combined with other parameters or immunohistochemistry 4 score may be used in postmenopausal patients without access to genomic tests to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. BCI may be offered to patients with 0-3 positive nodes who received 5 years of endocrine therapy without evidence of recurrence to guide decisions about extended endocrine therapy. None of the assays are recommended for treatment guidance in individuals with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

The Cancer Journal Article for Theme Issue: The Problem of Cancer Drug Costs.

Modern medical costs fall beyond most peoples' ability to pay and cause severe adverse effects that impact patients and families. It is time to team up with all stakeholders to provide solutions to systemic issues that thwart oncology's true goal to help patients survive their care and their cancer. Patients need realistic approaches that include (1) access to affordable treatments, (2) accountability and oversight toward patient costs and results in research, and (3) cost-effective drug supply once commercialized. Physicians play a critical role helping patients develop a plan that fits each person's medical, financial, and life situation.

Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update-Integration of Results From TAILORx.

PURPOSE: This focused update addresses the use of Oncotype DX in guiding decisions on the use of adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: ASCO uses a signals approach to facilitate guideline updating. For this focused update, the publication of the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) evaluating noninferiority of endocrine therapy alone versus chemoendocrine therapy for invasive disease-free survival in women with Oncotype DX scores provided a signal. An expert panel reviewed the results of TAILORx along with other published literature on the Oncotype DX assay to assess for evidence of clinical utility. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients with hormone receptor-positive, axillary node-negative breast cancer whose tumors have Oncotype DX recurrence scores of less than 26, there is little to no benefit from chemotherapy, especially for patients older than age 50 years. Clinicians may recommend endocrine therapy alone for women older than age 50 years. For patients 50 years of age or younger with recurrence scores of 16 to 25, clinicians may offer chemoendocrine therapy. Patients with recurrence scores greater than 30 should be considered candidates for chemoendocrine therapy. Based on informal consensus, the panel recommends that oncologists may offer chemoendocrine therapy to these patients with recurrence scores of 26 to 30. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Gene Expression Assays for Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Understanding the Differences.

Biomarkers are frequently used to guide decisions for treatment of early-stage estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor-positive (ER/PR+) invasive breast cancers and have been incorporated into guidelines. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2016 guideline and a 2017 update were recently published to help clinicians use the tests available. ASCO currently recommends five tests that show evidence of clinical utility based on the parameters defined in the guideline. These include the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX), Prediction of Analysis of Microarray-50 (PAM50), 12-gene risk score (Endopredict), Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and, most recently, the 70-gene assay (Mammaprint). However, discordance is often seen when the results of these gene assays are compared in a particular patient, for a number of reasons: the assays were initially developed to answer different questions, and the molecular makeup of each signature reflects this; the patient populations that were studied also differed and may not reflect the patient being tested; furthermore, the study design and statistical analysis varied between each test, leading to different scoring scales that may not be comparable. In this review, the background on the development and validation of these assays is discussed, and studies comparing them are reviewed. To provide guidance on which test to choose, the studies that support the level of evidence for clinical utility are presented. However, the choice of a particular test will also be influenced by socioeconomic factors, clinical factors, and patient preferences. We hope that a better understanding of the scientific and clinical rationale for each test will allow patients and providers to make optimal decisions for treatment of early-stage ER/PR+ breast cancer.

Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update.

Purpose This focused update addresses the use of MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA) to guide decisions on the use of adjuvant systemic therapy. Methods ASCO uses a signals approach to facilitate guideline updates. For this focused update, the publication of the phase III randomized MINDACT (Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy) study to evaluate the MammaPrint assay in 6,693 women with early-stage breast cancer provided a signal. An expert panel reviewed the results of the MINDACT study along with other published literature on the MammaPrint assay to assess for evidence of clinical utility. Recommendations If a patient has hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-negative breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in those with high clinical risk to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy due to its ability to identify a good-prognosis population with potentially limited chemotherapy benefit. Women in the low clinical risk category did not benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic MammaPrint risk group. Therefore, the MammaPrint assay does not have clinical utility in such patients. If a patient has hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in patients with one to three positive nodes and a high clinical risk to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. However, such patients should be informed that a benefit from chemotherapy cannot be excluded, particularly in patients with greater than one involved lymph node. The clinician should not use the MammaPrint assay to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive breast cancer at low clinical risk, nor any patient with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer, because of the lack of definitive data in these populations. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. METHODS: A literature search and prospectively defined study selection sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective-retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through 2014. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 50 relevant studies. One randomized clinical trial and 18 prospective-retrospective studies were found to have evaluated the clinical utility, as defined by the guideline, of specific biomarkers for guiding decisions on the need for adjuvant systemic therapy. No studies that met guideline criteria for clinical utility were found to guide choice of specific treatments or regimens. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to estrogen and progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, the panel found sufficient evidence of clinical utility for the biomarker assays Oncotype DX, EndoPredict, PAM50, Breast Cancer Index, and urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 in specific subgroups of breast cancer. No biomarker except for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 was found to guide choices of specific treatment regimens. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition.

OBJECTIVE: To update an evidence-based technology assessment of chemoprevention strategies for breast cancer risk reduction. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, aromatase inhibition, and fenretinide. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. VALUES: More weight was given to published randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS: A woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk reduction strategies is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer- and noncancer-related risks and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a defined 5-year projected breast cancer risk of > or= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. Risk/benefit models suggest that greatest clinical benefit with least side effects is derived from use of tamoxifen in younger (premenopausal) women (who are less likely to have thromboembolic sequelae and uterine cancer), women without a uterus, and women at higher breast cancer risk. Data do not as yet suggest that tamoxifen provides an overall health benefit or increases survival. In all circumstances, tamoxifen use should be discussed as part of an informed decision-making process with careful consideration of individually calculated risks and benefits. Use of tamoxifen combined with hormone replacement therapy or use of raloxifene, any aromatase inhibitor or inactivator, or fenretinide to lower the risk of developing breast cancer is not recommended outside of a clinical trial setting. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process and recommendations will be updated in a timely matter. VALIDATION: The conclusions were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.

The Value of Clinical Trials from a Patient Perspective.

Clinical trials are essential in developing new treatments, care, and prevention for people with cancer. Unfortunately U.S. accrual rates for adult cancers are approximately 2-3%, partly due to the way the clinical trial system operates. Breast cancer patient advocates know enrollment has to accelerate to translate the many new scientific discoveries into effective use. Most newly diagnosed women, however, know nothing about clinical trials or why to consider them. The way a woman is approached about clinical trials can create fear and misunderstanding during a time when her body puts her into a physiological state of shock. These misunderstandings exacerbate the situation, and can lead to mistrust that will taint future medical interactions if they are not assuaged immediately. Many women, family members, and friends want to investigate clinical trials, but have no guide to help them through this daunting process. They have to contact many sources, decipher medical jargon, find a "clinical trial doctor," and fight for insurance coverage. It is time for new approaches that make sense to patients. Clear information that helps people understand the value of research studies must also be presented in caring ways that reinforce the support people seek during crisis. Working together, cancer patient advocates and cancer researchers can provide this kind of useful information. The Clinical Trials Information Project (CTIP), a nonprofit organization established by patients and family members, has introduced a new approach through the CTIP Breast Cancer Kit

Biospecimens and people: a fundamental connection.

This commentary includes the public- and patient-oriented perspective on research biospecimens and the National Cancer Institute's cancer HUman Biobank (caHUB) project. Definitions of biospecimens and the importance to the research community and the public are included, as are conditions that caused the impetus of the caHUB.