Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies. OBJECTIVE: To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). DESIGN: Clustered stepped-wedge trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week "steps." INTERVENTION: Outreach to 50-75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting. MAIN MEASURES: Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each "step" by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and "step" by FQHC. KEY RESULTS: FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation "steps" compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across "steps." CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04585919.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Ovarian Cancer/Fallopian Tube Cancer/Primary Peritoneal Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer/Fallopian Tube Cancer/Primary Peritoneal Cancer provide multidisciplinary diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment recommendations for this disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail how the evolution of the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance and single-agent regimens for the treatment of ovarian cancer informed panel recommendations in the guidelines.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Reaching Populations to Address Disparities in Cancer Care Delivery: Results From a Six-Site Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Large segments of the US population do not receive quality cancer care due to pervasive and systemic inequities, which can increase morbidity and mortality. Multicomponent, multilevel interventions can address inequities and improve care, but only if they reach communities with suboptimal access. Intervention studies often underenroll individuals from historically excluded groups. METHODS: The Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care includes 6 grantees across the United States who implemented unique multicomponent, multilevel intervention programs with common goals of reducing disparities, increasing engagement, and improving the quality of care for targeted populations. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework informed the evaluation efforts across sites. Each Alliance site identified their intended populations, which included underrepresented minorities (eg, Black and Latinx persons), individuals who prefer a language other than English, and rural residents. We evaluated the demographic characteristics of participants to determine program reach. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2020, a total of 2,390 of 5,309 potentially eligible participants were enrolled across the 6 sites. The proportion of enrolled individuals with selected characteristics included 38% (n=908) Black adults, 24% (n=574) Latinx adults, 19% (n=454) preferring a language other than English, and 30% (n=717) rural residents. The proportion of those enrolled who were the intended population was commensurate to the proportion with desired characteristics in those identified as potentially eligible. CONCLUSIONS: The grantees met or exceeded enrollments from their intended populations who have been underserved by quality cancer care into patient-centered intervention programs. Intentional application of recruitment/engagement strategies is needed to reach individuals from historically underserved communities.

Cytisine Versus Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial.

INTRODUCTION: A smoking-cessation program was implemented as a randomized non-inferiority trial in primary care practices in Croatia and Slovenia to investigate whether a standard 4-week treatment with cytisine was at least as effective and feasible as a standard 12-week treatment with varenicline in helping smokers quit. AIMS AND METHODS: Out of 982 surveyed smokers, 377 were recruited to the non-inferiority trial: 186 were randomly assigned to cytisine and 191 to varenicline treatment. The primary cessation outcome was 7-day abstinence after 24 weeks, while the primary feasibility outcome was defined by adherence to the treatment plan. We also compared the rates of adverse events between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: The cessation rate after 24 weeks was 32.46% (62/191) in the varenicline group and 23.12% (43/186) in the cytisine group (odds ratio [OR]: 95%, credible interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.98). Of 191 participants assigned to varenicline treatment 59.16% (113) were adherent, while 70.43% (131 of 186) were adherent in the cytisine group (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.56). Participants assigned to cytisine experienced fewer total (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.81) and fewer severe or more extreme adverse events (IRR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized non-inferiority trial (n = 377) found the standard 4-week cytisine treatment to be less effective than the standard 12-week varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. However, adherence to the treatment plan, ie, feasibility, was higher, and the rate of adverse events was lower among participants assigned to cytisine treatment. IMPLICATIONS: The present study found the standard 12 weeks of varenicline treatment to be more effective than the standard 4 weeks of cytisine treatment for smoking cessation in a primary care setting in Croatia and Slovenia. Participants assigned to cytisine, however, had a higher adherence to the treatment plan and a lower rate of adverse events. Estimates from the present study may be especially suitable for generalizations to high-smoking prevalence populations in Europe. Given the much lower cost of cytisine treatment, its lower rate of adverse events, and higher feasibility (but its likely lower effectiveness with the standard dosage regimen), future analyses should assess the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments for health policy considerations.

Implementing patient navigation programs: Considerations and lessons learned from the Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Six multidisciplinary cancer centers were selected and funded by the Merck Foundation (2017-2021) to collaborate in the Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care ("Alliance"), an initiative to improve patient access, minimize health disparities, and enhance the quality of patient-centered cancer care. These sites share their insights on implementation and expansion of their patient navigation efforts. METHODS: Patient navigation represents an evidence-based health care intervention designed to enhance patient-centered care and care coordination. Investigators at 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers outline their approaches to reducing health care disparities and synthesize their efforts to ensure sustainability and successful transferability in the management of patients with cancer and their families in real-world health care settings. RESULTS: Insights are outlined within the context of patient navigation program effectiveness and supported by examples from Alliance cancer center sites: 1) understand the patient populations, particularly underserved and high-risk patients; 2) capitalize on the existing infrastructure and institutional commitment to support and sustain patient navigation; and 3) build capacity by mobilizing community support outside of the cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: This process-level article reflects the importance of collaboration and the usefulness of partnering with other cancer centers to share interdisciplinary insights while undergoing intervention development, implementation, and expansion. These collective insights may be useful to staff at other cancer centers that look to implement, enhance, or evaluate the effectiveness of their patient navigation interventions.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 3.2022.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years following diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines, including revised guidance on alternative chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced age and/or comorbidities, a new algorithm for recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma based on developing research and novel therapeutic agents, and updated language regarding tumor molecular analysis applications in ovarian cancer.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.

BACKGROUND: Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon-level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence-based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre-consultation) to T5 (1-year after surgery. RESULTS: Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self-reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Paper-based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. LAY SUMMARY: The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices. Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text-only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education. Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Patient Navigation for Patients with Mental Illness and/or Substance Use Disorder: Pilot Randomized Control Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening has decreased CRC mortality. However, disadvantaged patients, particularly those with mental illness or substance use disorder (SUD), are less likely to be screened. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a patient navigation program on CRC screening in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. METHODS: A pilot randomized nonblinded controlled trial was conducted from January to June 2017 in an urban community health center serving a low-income population. We randomized 251 patients aged 50-74 years with mental illness and/or SUD diagnosis overdue for CRC screening to intervention (n = 126) or usual care (n = 125) stratified by mental illness, SUD, or dual diagnosis. Intervention group patients received a letter followed by a phone call from patient navigators. Navigators helped patients overcome their individual barriers to CRC screening including: education, scheduling, explanation of bowel preparation, lack of transportation or accompaniment to appointments. If patient refused colonoscopy, navigators offered fecal occult blood testing. The main measure was proportion of patients completing CRC screening in intervention and usual care groups. RESULTS: Navigators contacted 85 patients (67%) in the intervention group and 26 declined to participate. In intention-to treat analysis, more patients in the intervention group received CRC screening than in the usual care group, 19% versus 10.4% (p = .04). Among 56 intervention patients who received navigation, 19 completed screening (33.9% versus 10.4% in the control group, p = .001). In the subgroup of patients with SUD, 20% in the intervention group were screened compared to none in the usual care group (p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: A patient navigation program improved CRC screening rates in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. Larger studies in diverse care settings are needed to demonstrate generalizability and explore which modality of CRC screening is most acceptable and which navigator activities are most effective for this vulnerable population. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016P001322.

Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Engagement from the Patient and Provider Perspective.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT reduces mortality among high-risk current and former smokers and has been covered by public and private insurers without cost sharing since 2015. Patients and referring providers confront numerous barriers to participation in screening. To best serve in multidisciplinary efforts to expand LCS nationwide, radiologists must be knowledgeable of these challenges. A better understanding of the difficulties confronted by other stakeholders will help radiologists continue to collaboratively guide the growth of LCS programs in their communities. This article reviews barriers to participation in LCS for patients and referring providers, as well as possible solutions and interventions currently underway.

Non-English Language Availability of Community Health Center Websites.

BACKGROUND: For limited English-proficient (LEP) patients, the digital divide has narrowed, creating a new population of Internet users. However, language-appropriate health information is difficult to find. Community health center (CHC) websites are health information resources and their homepages are critical access points for patients. CHCs supported by Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) care for many LEP patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the number of HRSA-supported CHC websites providing translated homepage content. RESEARCH DESIGN: In February 2017, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of the language availability of CHC homepages. MEASURES: The primary outcome was availability of translated content on CHC homepages. Secondary outcomes were method of translation and associations between homepage translation and CHC demographics, including percent LEP population and socioeconomic and Internet access characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1400 CHC homepages, 480 (34.3%) provided translated information with half using Google Translate. We found higher odds of having a translated homepage as the LEP population by county increased [odds ratio (OR): 1.26, confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.49, P=0.005], Internet subscription at the state level increased (OR: 1.19, CI: 1.02-1.38, P=0.026), and if health centers were in metropolitan areas (OR: 1.81, CI: 1.31-2.51, P<0.001). There was also higher likelihood of having a homepage translated to Spanish in counties with higher Spanish LEP populations (OR: 1.39, CI: 1.19-1.63, P<0.001), but this did not extend to non-Spanish languages (OR: 0.85, CI: 0.71-1.04, P=0.131). CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased Internet use among LEP patients and linguistic diversity of the CHC populations, there is a lack of language-appropriate content on CHC website homepages.

Comparing Diagnostic Evaluations for Rectal Bleeding and Breast Lumps in Primary Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding in primary care are an important source of medical errors. Delays appear particularly common in evaluation of rectal bleeding. Comparing pursuit and completion of diagnostic testing for these two conditions within the same practice settings could help highlight barriers and inform interventions. OBJECTIVES: To examine processes undertaken for diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding within the same practices and to compare them with regard to (a) the likelihood that diagnostic tests are ordered according to guidelines and (b) the timeliness of order placement and completion. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using explicit chart abstraction methods. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred women aged 30-80 presenting with breast lumps and 300 men and women aged 40-80 years presenting with rectal bleeding to 15 academically affiliated primary care practices, 2012-2016. MAIN MEASURES: Rates and timing of test ordering and completion and patterns of visits and communications. KEY RESULTS: At initial presentation, physicians ordered recommended imaging or procedures at higher rates for patients with breast lumps compared to those with rectal bleeding (97% vs. 86% of patients recommended to receive imaging or endoscopy; p < 0.01). Most (90%) patients with breast lumps completed recommended diagnostic testing within 1 month, versus 31% of patients with rectal bleeding (p < 0.01). By 1 year, 7% of patients with breast lumps had not completed indicated imaging, versus 27% of those with rectal bleeding. Patients with breast lumps had fewer subsequent primary care visits related or unrelated to their symptom and had fewer related communications with specialists. LIMITATIONS: The study relied on documented care, and findings may be most generalizable to academically affiliated institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic processes for rectal bleeding were less frequently guideline-concordant and timely than those for breast lumps. The largest discrepancies occurred in initial ordering of indicated tests and the timeliness of test completion.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2019.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years from diagnosis. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. The best outcomes are observed in patients whose primary treatment includes complete resection of all visible disease plus combination platinum-based chemotherapy. Research efforts are focused on primary neoadjuvant treatments that may improve resectability, as well as systemic therapies providing improved long-term survival. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy recommendations, including the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the role of PARP inhibitors and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy options in select patients who have completed primary chemotherapy.

Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients Presenting to Primary Care with Rectal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Rectal bleeding is a common, frequently benign problem that can also be an early sign of colorectal cancer. Diagnostic evaluation for rectal bleeding is complex, and clinical practice may deviate from available guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree to which primary care physicians document risk factors for colorectal cancer among patients with rectal bleeding and order colonoscopies when indicated, and the likelihood of physicians ordering and patients receiving recommended colonoscopies based on demographic characteristics, visit patterns, and clinical presentations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using explicit chart abstraction methods. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred adults, 40-80 years of age, presenting with rectal bleeding to 15 academically affiliated primary care practices between 2012 and 2016. MAIN MEASURES: 1) The frequency at which colorectal cancer risk factors were documented in patients' charts, 2) the frequency at which physicians ordered colonoscopies and patients received them, and 3) the odds of ordering and patients receiving recommended colonoscopies based on patient demographic characteristics, visit patterns, and clinical presentations. KEY RESULTS: Risk factors for colorectal cancer were documented between 9% and 66% of the time. Most patients (89%) with rectal bleeding needed a colonoscopy according to a clinical guideline. Physicians placed colonoscopy orders for 74% of these patients, and 56% completed the colonoscopy within a year (36% within 60 days). The odds of physicians ordering recommended colonoscopies were significantly higher in patients aged 50-64 years of age than in those aged 40-50 years (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.04, 4.80), and for patients whose most recent colonoscopy was 5 or more years ago (OR = 4.04, 95% CI: 1.50, 10.83). The odds of physicians ordering and patients receiving recommended colonoscopies were significantly lower for each primary care visit unrelated to rectal bleeding (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic evaluation of patients presenting to primary care with rectal bleeding may be suboptimal because of inadequate risk factor assessment and prioritization of patients' other concurrent medical problems.

Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making: Results from three clinical settings in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: CollaboRATE is a brief patient survey focused on shared decision making. This paper aims to (i) provide insight on facilitators and challenges to implementing a real-time patient survey and (ii) evaluate CollaboRATE scores and response rates across multiple clinical settings with varied patient populations. METHOD: All adult patients at three United States primary care practices were eligible to complete CollaboRATE post-visit. To inform key learnings, we aggregated all mentions of unanticipated decisions, problems and administration errors from field notes and email communications. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated the impact of site, clinician, patient age and patient gender on the CollaboRATE score. RESULTS: While CollaboRATE score increased only slightly with increasing patient age (OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.014-1.021), female patient gender was associated with significantly higher CollaboRATE scores (OR 1.224, 95% CI 1.073-1.397). Clinician also predicts CollaboRATE score (random effect variance 0.146). Site-specific factors such as clinical workflow and checkout procedures play a key role in successful in-clinic implementation and are significantly related to CollaboRATE scores, with Site 3 scoring significantly higher than Site 1 (OR 1.759, 95% CI 1.216 to 2.545) or Site 2 (z=-2.71, 95% CI -1.114 to -0.178). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that CollaboRATE can be used in diverse primary care settings. A clinic's workflow plays a crucial role in implementation. Patient experience measurement risks becoming a burden to both patients and administrators. Episodic use of short measurement tools could reduce this burden.

What matters most: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery encounter decision aids across socioeconomic strata.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women. Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) have equivalent survival for early stage breast cancer. However, each surgery has different benefits and harms that women may value differently. Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) diagnosed with early stage breast cancer are more likely to experience poorer doctor-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery and decision-making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. They often play a more passive role in decision-making and are less likely to undergo BCS. Our aim is to understand how best to support women of lower SES in making decisions about early stage breast cancer treatments and to reduce disparities in decision quality across socioeconomic strata. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm, multi-site randomized controlled superiority trial with stratification by SES and clinician-level randomization. At four large cancer centers in the United States, 1100 patients (half higher SES and half lower SES) will be randomized to: (1) Option Grid, (2) Picture Option Grid, or (3) usual care. Interviews, field-notes, and observations will be used to explore strategies that promote the interventions' sustained use and dissemination. Community-Based Participatory Research will be used throughout. We will include women aged at least 18 years of age with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer (I to IIIA) from both higher and lower SES, provided they speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese. Our primary outcome measure is the 16-item validated Decision Quality Instrument. We will use a regression framework, mediation analyses, and multiple informants analysis. Heterogeneity of treatment effects analyses for SES, age, ethnicity, race, literacy, language, and study site will be performed. DISCUSSION: Currently, women of lower SES are more likely to make treatment decisions based on incomplete or uninformed preferences, potentially leading to poorer decision quality, quality of life, and decision regret. This study hopes to identify solutions that effectively improve patient-centered care across socioeconomic strata and reduce disparities in decision and care quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03136367 at ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol version: Manuscript based on study protocol version 2.2, 7 November 2017.

The rehabilitation enhancing aging through connected health (REACH) study: study protocol for a quasi-experimental clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations among older adults increase the risk for disability and healthcare utilization. Rehabilitative care is identified as the most efficacious treatment for maintaining physical function. However, there is insufficient evidence identifying a healthcare model that targets prevention of mobility decline among older adults. The objective of this study is to evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of a physical therapy program, augmented with mobile tele-health technology, on mobility function and healthcare utilization among older adults. METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental 12-month clinical trial conducted within a metropolitan-based healthcare system in the northeastern United States. It is in parallel with an existing longitudinal cohort study evaluating mobility decline among community-dwelling older adult primary care patients over one year. Seventy-five older adults (≥ 65-95 years) are being recruited using identical inclusion/exclusion criteria to the cohort study. Three aims will be evaluated: the effect of our program on 1) physical function, 2) healthcare utilization, and 3) healthcare costs. Changes in patient-reported function over 1 year in those receiving the intervention (aim 1) will be compared to propensity score matched controls (N = 150) from the cohort study. For aims 2 and 3, propensity scores, derived from logistic regression model that includes demographic and diagnostic information available through claims and enrollment information, will be used to match treatment and control patients in a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 from a Medicare Claims Registry derived from the same geographic region. The intervention consists of a one-year physical therapy program that is divided between a combination of outpatient and home visits (6-10 total visits) and is augmented on a computerized tablet using of a commercially available application to deliver a progressive home-based exercise program emphasizing lower-extremity function and a walking program. DISCUSSION: Incorporating mobile health into current healthcare models of rehabilitative care has the potential to decrease hospital visits and provide a longer duration of care. If the hypotheses are supported and demonstrate improved mobility and reduced healthcare utilization, this innovative care model would be applicable for optimizing the maintenance of functional independence among community-dwelling older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT02580409 (Date of registration October 14, 2015).

Financial Burden of Cancer Clinical Trial Participation and the Impact of a Cancer Care Equity Program.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer clinical trial (CT) participation rates are low and financial barriers likely play a role. We implemented a cancer care equity program (CCEP) to address financial burden associated with trial participation. We sought to examine the impact of the CCEP on CT enrollment and to assess barriers to participation. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series design to determine trends in CT enrollment before and after CCEP implementation. Linear regression models compared trial enrollment before and after the CCEP. We also compared patient characteristics before and after the CCEP and between CCEP and non-CCEP participants. We surveyed CCEP and non-CCEP participants to compare pre-enrollment financial barriers. RESULTS: After accounting for increased trial availability and the trends in accrual for prior years, we found that enrollment increased after CCEP implementation (18.97 participants per month greater than expected; p < .001). A greater proportion of CCEP participants were younger, female, in phase I trials, lived farther away, had lower incomes, and had metastatic disease. Of 87 participants who completed the financial barriers survey, 49 CCEP and 38 matched, non-CCEP participants responded (63% response rate). CCEP participants were more likely to report concerns regarding finances (56% vs. 11%), medical costs (47% vs. 14%), travel (69% vs. 11%), lodging (60% vs. 9%), and insurance coverage (43% vs. 14%) related to trial participation (all p < .01). CONCLUSION: CT participation increased following implementation of the CCEP and the program enrolled patients experiencing greater financial burden. These findings highlight the need to address the financial burden associated with CT participation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial barriers likely discourage patients from participating in clinical trials. Implementation of a cancer care equity program (CCEP) seeking to reduce financial barriers by assisting with travel and lodging costs was associated with increased trial accrual. The CCEP provided assistance to patients particularly in need, including those living farther away, those with lower incomes, and those reporting financial barriers related to trial participation. These findings suggest that financial concerns represent a major barrier to patient participation in clinical trials and underscore the importance of efforts to address these concerns.

Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer focuses on the less common ovarian histopathologies (LCOHs), because new algorithms were added for LCOHs and current algorithms were revised for the 2016 update. The new LCOHs algorithms include clear cell carcinomas, mucinous carcinomas, and grade 1 (low-grade) serous carcinomas/endometrioid epithelial carcinomas. The LCOHs also include carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed Müllerian tumors of the ovary), borderline epithelial tumors (also known as low malignant potential tumors), malignant sex cord-stromal tumors, and malignant germ cell tumors.