Use of a clinical trial screening tool to enhance patient accrual.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial patient accrual continues to be challenging despite the identification of multiple physician, patient, and system barriers. Expanded collection of demographic data, including socioeconomic status (employment, income, education) and comorbidities, can enhance our understanding of the identified barriers, inform the development of interventions to overcome these barriers, and recognize their impact on treatment outcomes. A clinical trials screening tool was developed to collect expanded demographic data and barriers to trial enrollment; it has been implemented in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of the tool and to share information obtained during the first 43 months of its use. METHODS: There were 19,373 entries collected; 74% of those screened enrolled in a clinical trial. Demographic characteristics were compared between those screened and those enrolled. They varied significantly between the groups. RESULTS: Reasons for nonenrollment included ineligibility (50%), eligible but declined (47%), eligible but physician declined to offer participation (2%), and eligible but the study was suspended (1%). The most common reasons for ineligibility were failure to meet the protocol-specific stage of cancer, the presence of comorbidities, and the symptom-eligibility score was not met. The most common reason for eligible patients declining participation was that they had no desire to participate in research. CONCLUSIONS: The tool provides valuable information about the characteristics of individuals who are screened and enrolled in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials, as well as about barriers to enrollment in trials. The data also inform protocol development and interventions at the patient, provider, and institutional level.

Standardization of lower extremity quantitative lymphedema measurements and associated patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancers.

Practice changing standardization of lower extremity lymphedema quantitative measurements with integrated patient reported outcomes will likely refine and redefine the optimal risk-reduction strategies to diminish the devastating limb-related dysfunction and morbidity associated with treatment of gynecologic cancers. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Division of Cancer Prevention brought together a diverse group of cancer treatment, therapy and patient reported outcomes experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science in lymphedema evaluation with the potential goal of incorporating new strategies for optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing gynecologic clinical trials.

Reporting of health-related quality of life endpoints in National Cancer Institute-supported cancer treatment trials.

BACKGROUND: The importance of capturing and reporting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in clinical trials has been increasingly recognized in the oncology field. As a result, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) began to provide support for correlative HRQOL studies in cancer treatment trials. The current study was conducted to assess the publication rate of HRQOL correlative studies in NCI-supported treatment trials and to identify potential factors positively or negatively associated with publication rates. METHODS: The NCI conducted a retrospective review of existing NCI databases to identify cancer treatment trials that had obtained additional NCI funding for the assessment of HRQOL and to determine the extent to which funded HRQOL studies have been completed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: Of the 108 included trials, 58 (54%) had a parent trial (PT) publication; of these, 36 trials (62%) had a published HRQOL result: 20 as an independent publication and 16 that were included and/or reported in the PT publication. The length of time between trial activation and closure, as well as the specific cancer, appeared to be associated with the publication rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that approximately 45% of the PT publications were followed by a HRQOL publication within 1 year, to allow the knowledge to be used in patient treatment decision making. The authors believe the current analysis is an important first step toward a better understand of the challenges that researchers face when reporting HRQOL endpoints.

Challenges in ductal carcinoma in situ risk communication and decision-making: report from an American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute workshop.

In September 2010, the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute convened a conference to review current issues in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) risk communication and decision-making and to identify directions for future research. Specific topics included patient and health care provider knowledge and attitudes about DCIS and its treatment, how to explain DCIS to patients given the heterogeneity of the disease, consideration of nomenclature changes, and the usefulness of decision tools/aids. This report describes the proceedings of the workshop in the context of the current literature and discusses future directions. Evidence suggests that there is a lack of clarity about the implications and risks of a diagnosis of DCIS among patients, providers, and researchers. Research is needed to understand better the biology and mechanisms of the progression of DCIS to invasive breast cancer and the factors that predict those subtypes of DCIS that do not progress, as well as efforts to improve the communication and informed decision-making surrounding DCIS.

Creating a "culture of research" in a community hospital: Strategies and tools from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program.

BACKGROUND: The value of community-based cancer research has long been recognized. In addition to the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical and Minority-Based Oncology Programs established in 1983, and 1991 respectively, the National Cancer Institute established the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program in 2007 with an aim of enhancing access to high-quality cancer care and clinical research in the community setting where most cancer patients receive their treatment. This article discusses strategies utilized by the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program to build research capacity and create a more entrenched culture of research at the community hospitals participating in the program over a 7-year period. METHODS: To facilitate development of a research culture at the community hospitals, the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program required leadership or chief executive officer engagement; utilized a collaborative learning structure where best practices, successes, and challenges could be shared; promoted site-to-site mentoring to foster faster learning within and between sites; required research program assessments that spanned clinical trial portfolio, accrual barriers, and outreach; increased identification and use of metrics; and, finally, encouraged research team engagement across hospital departments (navigation, multidisciplinary care, pathology, and disparities) to replace the traditionally siloed approach to clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: The health-care environment is rapidly changing while complexity in research increases. Successful research efforts are impacted by numerous factors (e.g. institutional review board reviews, physician interest, and trial availability). The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program sites, as program participants, had access to the required resources and support to develop and implement the strategies described. Metrics are an important component yet often challenging to identify and collect. The model requires a strong emphasis on outreach that challenges hospitals to improve and expand their reach, particularly into underrepresented populations and catchment areas. These efforts build on trust and a referral pipeline within the community which take time and significant commitment to establish. CONCLUSION: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program experience provides a relevant model to broadly address creating a culture of research in community hospitals that are increasingly networked via systems and consortiums. The strategies used align well with the National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Accrual Symposium recommendations for patient-/community-, physician-/provider-, and site-/organizational-level approaches to clinical trials; they helped sites achieve organizational culture shifts that enhanced their cancer research programs. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals reported that the strategies were challenging to implement yet proved valuable as they provided useful metrics for programmatic assessment, planning, reporting, and growth. While focused on oncology trials, these concepts may be useful within other disease-focused research as well.

Gaining control over breast cancer risk: Transforming vulnerability, uncertainty, and the future through clinical trial participation - a qualitative study.

Concepts of disease risk and its management are central to processes of medicalisation and pharmaceuticalisation. Through a narrative perspective, this paper aims to understand how such macro-level developments may (or may not) be experienced individually, and how an algorithm that is used for recruitment into a clinical trial may structure individual notions of being 'at risk' and 'in need of treatment'. We interviewed 31 women participating in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR), a chemoprevention trial conducted in the US between 1999 and 2006. Interviews were thematically analysed. Women in the study had experienced the threat of breast cancer and felt vulnerable to developing the disease prior to STAR participation. The diagnosis of 'being at risk' for cancer through an algorithm that determined risk-eligibility for STAR, opened up the possibility for the women to heal. The trial became a means to recognise and collectivise the women's experiences of vulnerability. Through medication intake, being cared for by study coordinators, and the sense of community with other STAR participants, trial participation worked to transform women's lives. Such transformative experiences may nevertheless have been temporary, enduring only as long as the close links to the medical institution through trial participation lasted.

Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program.

BACKGROUND: This study examined racial/ethnic differences among patients in clinical trial (CT) enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and desire to participate in research within the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) Clinical Trial Screening and Accrual Log. METHODS: Data from 4509 log entries were evaluated in this study. Four logistic regression models were run using physical/medical conditions, enrollment into a CT, patient eligible but declined a CT, and no desire to participate in research as dependent variables. RESULTS: Age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.28-1.79), males (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.92-2.71), and non-Hispanic black race (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.2-1.96) were significantly associated with more physical/medical conditions. Age ≥ 65 years was significantly associated with lower CT enrollment (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.7-0.98). Males (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65-0.94) and a higher grade level score for consent form readability (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.83-0.97) were significantly associated with lower refusal rates. Consent page length ≥ 20 was significantly associated with lower odds of "no desire to participate in research" among CT decliners (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: There were no racial/ethnic differences in CT enrollment, refusal rates, or "no desire to participate in research" as the reason given for CT refusal. Higher odds of physical/medical conditions were associated with older age, males, and non-Hispanic blacks. Better management of physical/medical conditions before and during treatment may increase the pool of eligible patients for CTs. Future work should examine the role of comorbidities, sex, age, and consent form characteristics on CT participation.

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.

National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene trial: advancing the science of recruitment and breast cancer risk assessment in minority communities.

BACKGROUND: One of the first chemoprevention trials conducted in the western hemisphere, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project's (NSABP) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT), demonstrated the need to evaluate all aspects of recruitment in real time and to implement strategies to enroll racial and ethnic minority women. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to review various patient recruitment efforts the NSABP developed to enhance the participation of racial and ethnic minority women in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial and to describe the role that the recruitment process played in the implementation and understanding of breast cancer risk assessment in minority communities. METHODS: The NSABP STAR trial was a randomized, double-blinded study comparing the use of tamoxifen 20 mg/day to raloxifene 60 mg/day, for a 5-year period, to reduce the risk of developing invasive breast cancer. Eligible postmenopausal women were required to have a 5-year predicted breast cancer risk of 1.66% based on the modified Gail Model. For the current report, eligibility and enrollment data were tabulated by race/ethnicity for women who submitted STAR risk assessment forms (RAFs). RESULTS: A total of 184,460 RAFs were received, 145,550 (78.9%) from white women and 38,910 (21.1%) from minority women. Of the latter group, 21,444 (11.6%) were from African Americans/blacks, 7913 (4.5%) from Hispanics/Latinas, and 9553 (5.2%) from other racial or ethnic groups. The percentages of risk-eligible women among African Americans, Hispanics/Latinas, others, and whites were 14.2%, 23.3%, 13.7%, and 57.4%, respectively. Programs targeting minority enrollment submitted large numbers of RAFs, but the eligibility rates of the women referred from those groups tended to be lower than the rates among women referred outside of those programs. The average number of completed risk assessments increased among minority women over the course of the recruitment period compared to those from whites. LIMITATIONS: We have not addressed all identified barriers to the recruitment of minorities in clinical research. Our risk assessments and recruitment results do not reflect the modified Gail Model for African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment strategies used in STAR for racial and ethnic minorities contributed to doubling the minority enrollment compared to that in the BCPT and increased the awareness of breast cancer risk assessment in minority communities. Incorporation of new information into models to improve the risk estimation of diverse populations should prove beneficial.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT). METHODS: In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables. RESULTS: A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study.

OBJECTIVES: Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards. DESIGN: Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1). SETTING: Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included. METHODS: Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories. RESULTS: Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider's information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the necessity that patients' experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients' information engagement into types. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01399359.

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.

Race and the prognostic influence of p53 in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior study suggests that p53 status behaves as an independent marker of prognosis in African American (AA) women with breast cancer. We investigate whether the influence of p53 is unique to AAs or is present in other race/ethnic groups, and how this compares with known prognostic factors. METHODS: Cox regression models [hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were used to select and evaluate factors prognostic for all-cause mortality in 331 AA and 203 non-AA consecutively treated women. RESULTS: Statistically significant baseline prognostic factors were as follows. For AAs: stage [(III/I) HR 5.57; 95% CI 3.08-10.09], grade [(higher/low) HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.14-2.11], estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) status [(-/+) HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.38-2.93], triple negative (ER-, PR-, HER2-) subtype [(+/-) HR 1.95; 95% CI 1.33-2.85], and p53 status [(+/-) HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.10-2.58]. For non-AAs: stage [HR 11.93; 95% CI 2.80-50.84], grade [HR 1.61; 95% CI 0.96-2.71], and ER/PR status [HR 2.13; 95% CI 1.19-3.81]. There was a differential effect of race within p53 groups (P=0.05) and in multivariate modeling p53-positive status remained an adverse prognostic factor in AAs only [HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04-3.17]. Compared to non-AAs, 5-year unadjusted survival was worse for AAs overall (73.4% vs. 63.6%; P=0.032), and also for AAs with p53-positive status (80.3% vs. 54.2%; P=0.016), but not for AAs with p53-negative disease (68.4% vs. 67.9%; P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with breast cancer of different race/ethnicity, an adverse prognostic effect as a result of p53 positivity was only observed in AA women.

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.

COVID-19, Social Justice, and Clinical Cancer Research.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related socioeconomic events have markedly changed the environment in which cancer clinical trials are conducted. These events have resulted in a substantial, immediate-term decrease in accrual to both diagnostic and therapeutic cancer investigations as well as substantive alterations in patterns of oncologic care. The sponsors of clinical trials, including the US National Cancer Institute, as well as the cancer centers and community oncology practices that conduct such studies, have all markedly adapted their models of care, usage of healthcare personnel, and regulatory requirements in the attempt to continue clinical cancer investigations while maintaining high levels of patient safety. In doing so, major changes in clinical trials practice have been embraced nationwide. There is a growing consensus that the regulatory and clinical research process alterations that have been adopted in response to the pandemic (such as the use of telemedicine visits to reduce patient travel requirements and the application of remote informed consent procedures) should be implemented long term. The COVID-19 outbreak has also refocused the oncologic clinical trials community on the need to bring clinical trials closer to patients by dramatically enhancing clinical trial access, especially for minority and underserved communities that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In this commentary, changes to the program of clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute that could improve clinical trial availability, effectiveness, and diversity are proposed.

DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings.

Patients, practitioners, and policy makers are increasingly concerned about the delivery of ineffective or low-value clinical practices in cancer care settings. Research is needed on how to effectively deimplement these types of practices from cancer care. In this commentary, we spotlight the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), a national network of community oncology practices, and elaborate on how it is an ideal infrastructure for conducting rigorous, real-world research on deimplementation. We describe key multilevel issues that affect deimplementation and also serve as a guidepost for developing strategies to drive deimplementation. We describe optimal study designs for testing deimplementation strategies and elaborate on how and why the NCORP network is uniquely positioned to conduct rigorous and impactful deimplementation trials. The number and diversity of affiliated community oncology care sites, coupled with the overall objective of improving cancer care delivery, make the NCORP an opportune infrastructure for advancing deimplementation research while simultaneously improving the care of millions of cancer patients nationwide.

Establishing a Primary Care Alliance for Conducting Cancer Prevention Clinical Research at Community Sites.

In September 2020, the National Cancer Institute convened the first PARTNRS Workshop as an initiative to forge partnerships between oncologists, primary care professionals, and non-oncology specialists for promoting patient accrual into cancer prevention trials. This effort is aimed at bringing about more effective accrual methods to generate decisive outcomes in cancer prevention research. The workshop convened to inspire solutions to challenges encountered during the development and implementation of cancer prevention trials. Ultimately, strategies suggested for protocol development might enhance integration of these trials into community settings where a diversity of patients might be accrued. Research Bases (cancer research organizations that develop protocols) could encourage more involvement of primary care professionals, relevant prevention specialists, and patient representatives with protocol development beginning at the concept level to improve adoptability of the trials within community facilities, and consider various incentives to primary care professionals (i.e., remuneration). Principal investigators serving as liaisons for the NCORP affiliates and sub-affiliates, might produce and maintain "Prevention Research Champions" lists of PCPs and non-oncology specialists relevant in prevention research who can attract health professionals to consider incorporating prevention research into their practices. Finally, patient advocates and community health providers might convince patients of the benefits of trial-participation and encourage "shared-decision making."

The effect of body mass index on overall and disease-free survival in node-positive breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel and doxorubicin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy: the experience of the BIG 02-98 trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has been shown to be an indicator of poor prognosis for patients with primary breast cancer (BC) regardless of the use of adjuvant systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 2,887 node-positive BC patients enrolled in the BIG 02-98 adjuvant study, a randomised phase III trial whose primary objective was to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) by adding docetaxel to doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. In the current analysis, the effect of body mass index (BMI) on DFS and overall survival (OS) was assessed. BMI was obtained before the first cycle of chemotherapy. Obesity was defined as a BMI >or= 30 kg/m2. RESULTS: In total, 547 (19%) patients were obese at baseline, while 2,340 (81%) patients were non-obese. Estimated 5-year OS was 87.5% for non-obese and 82.9% for obese patients (HR 1.34; P = 0.013). Estimated 5-years DFS was 75.9% for nonobese and 70.0% for obese patients (HR 1.20; P = 0.041). Ina multivariate model, obesity remained an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: In this study,obesity was associated with poorer outcome in node-positive BC patients. Given the increasing prevalence of obesity worldwide, more research on improving the treatment of obese BC patients is needed.

p53 as a marker of prognosis in African-American women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: p53 overexpression has been identified as a poor prognostic marker in breast cancer. We investigate the value of p53 status within the context of stage and intrinsic subtype classification (subtype), in a group of African-American (AA) women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with primary breast cancer. METHODS: Participants were 331 consecutive AA women treated at an urban hospital (median follow-up 41 months) with known subtype [luminal A = estrogen receptor (ER)+ and/or progesterone receptor (PR)+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-; luminal B = ER+ and/or PR+, HER2+; HER2+ = ER-, PR-, HER2+; basal = ER-, PR-, HER2-, cytokeratin (CK)5/6+, and/or HER1+; and unclassified = negative for all five markers] and p53 (Pab1801 antibody) immunohistochemical status. Proportional hazards regression models were used to select and evaluate factors prognostic for all-cause mortality. RESULTS: p53+ status was associated with grade 3 tumors, ER/PR- status, and basal subtype. On univariate analysis, factors related to survival were stage, grade [(3/1) hazard ratio (HR) = 2.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-6.07], subtype [(ex. basal/luminal A) HR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.34-3.45], and p53 status [(+/-) HR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.15-2.72]. Multivariable modeling indicated that p53+ status remained a negative prognostic factor (HR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.59) after adjustment for effects of age, stage, grade, and subtype; 5-year adjusted survival was significantly greater for p53- (66.7%) than p53+ cases (54.7%). CONCLUSION: p53 status is an independent predictor of survival after consideration of other strong prognostic factors such as stage, tumor grade, and subtype, and thus may be useful in identifying AA women at high risk of breast cancer mortality.