The shared uncertainty experience of older adults with advanced cancer and their caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: One primary source of psychological distress in patients with cancer and their caregivers is uncertainty. However, the uncertainty trajectory and its relationship between older adults with advanced cancer and their caregivers have rarely been examined. This study describes the uncertainty trajectory in patient-caregiver dyads, explores the effect of geriatric assessment (GA) intervention on trajectory, and examines the interdependent relationship of uncertainty. METHODS: This secondary analysis used longitudinal data from a national cluster-randomized controlled trial examining a GA intervention compared to usual care. Participants completed the modified 9-item Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale at enrollment, 4-6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. The dyadic growth model and cross-lagged actor-partner interdependence model were used. RESULTS: A total of 397 dyads (patient age M = 76.81 ± SD5.43; caregiver age M = 66.69 ± SD12.52) were included. Both had a trend of decreased uncertainty over time (b = -0.16, p < 0.01). There was a greater decrease in uncertainty among caregivers in the GA group than those in the usual care group (b = -0.46, p = 0.02). For both patients and caregivers, their past uncertainty was a significant predictor of their own current uncertainty (i.e., actor effect, p < 0.01). The individual's past uncertainty was a significant predictor of the other dyad member's current uncertainty (i.e., partner effect, p < 0.05), indicating an interdependent relationship between patient and caregiver uncertainty over time. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest patient and caregiver function as a unit with uncertainty levels affecting each other. Future interventions could build on GA to address uncertainty for older patients with advanced cancer and caregivers.

PA- and NP-led Ommaya clinics to manage leptomeningeal carcinomatosis.

OBJECTIVES: Physician assistants (PAs) and NPs are essential to quality care delivery. The need to demonstrate value and optimize PA and NP roles in neurology subspecialty clinics is unmet. We outline the development of a PA- and NP-led neuro-oncology procedural clinic and provide metrics to support the institutional and clinician value added. METHODS: We designed a PA- and NP-led Geisinger Ommaya Clinic (GOC) to manage leptomeningeal carcinomatosis (LMC) with defined clinician roles and the GOC treatment protocol. A retrospective review of 135 patients (2012-2019) compared survival outcomes for patients treated on the protocol compared with those treated off the protocol. RESULTS: Centralized care in the GOCs minimized shared physician encounters and improved PA and NP autonomy and utility. LMC therapy as part of the GOC protocol improved care continuity and survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PA- and NP-led procedural clinics optimize use of these clinicians and open physician availability for nonprocedural duties. This research highlights the institutional patient and financial benefit while demonstrating the operational and leadership growth potential for PAs and NPs.

Breast cancer risk reduction: Notable achievements and remaining challenges.

Millions of women in the United States are at increased risk of breast cancer. Multiple prospective, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated both the efficacy and safety of selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors in reducing substantially the risk of invasive breast cancer in women at increased risk. Published tables are available to aid clinicians in shared decision-making regarding drug interventions with their patients who are at increased risk of breast cancer. Both professional and governmental agencies have advised that these interventions should be offered to women at increased risk of breast cancer. Doing so would reduce breast cancer morbidity substantially.

Early cancer diagnoses through BRCA1/2 screening of unselected adult biobank participants.

PurposeThe clinical utility of screening unselected individuals for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants has not been established. Data on cancer risk management behaviors and diagnoses of BRCA1/2-associated cancers can help inform assessments of clinical utility.MethodsWhole-exome sequences of participants in the MyCode Community Health Initiative were reviewed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. Clinically confirmed variants were disclosed to patient-participants and their clinicians. We queried patient-participants' electronic health records for BRCA1/2-associated cancer diagnoses and risk management that occurred within 12 months after results disclosure, and calculated the percentage of patient-participants of eligible age who had begun risk management.ResultsThirty-seven MyCode patient-participants were unaware of their pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, had not had a BRCA1/2-associated cancer, and had 12 months of follow-up. Of the 33 who were of an age to begin BRCA1/2-associated risk management, 26 (79%) had performed at least one such procedure. Three were diagnosed with an early-stage, BRCA1/2-associated cancer-including a stage 1C fallopian tube cancer-via these procedures.ConclusionScreening for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants among unselected individuals can lead to occult cancer detection shortly after disclosure. Comprehensive outcomes data generated within our learning healthcare system will aid in determining whether population-wide BRCA1/2 genomic screening programs offer clinical utility.

Ongoing data from the breast cancer prevention trials: opportunity for breast cancer risk reduction.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) reduce the risk of recurrence of invasive breast cancer and the incidence of first breast cancers in women who are at increased risk. Multiple, randomized clinical trials have shown both the efficacy and safety of SERMs in reducing the risk of breast cancer. Long-term follow-up as long as 20 years in the randomized trials shows persistent efficacy with acceptable safety. Hormone replacement therapy given concurrently with tamoxifen abrogates its preventive effect, but women with atypical hyperplasia derive particular benefit from SERM therapy. Aromatase inhibitors also reduce the risk of developing invasive breast cancer, but the experience with them for risk reduction is limited to few trials. National organizations have made recommendations to use SERMs and aromatase inhibitors to reduce the risk of breast cancer in high-risk women and additional efforts should be made to increase their use in clinical practice, where the number of women needed to treat to prevent one case of breast cancer conforms to accepted standards of preventive medicine.

Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen and raloxifene reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at elevated risk of disease, but the duration of the effect is unknown. We assessed the effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) on breast cancer incidence. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis with individual participant data from nine prevention trials comparing four selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, and lasofoxifene) with placebo, or in one study with tamoxifen. Our primary endpoint was incidence of all breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ) during a 10 year follow-up period. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: We analysed data for 83,399 women with 306,617 women-years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 65 months (IQR 54-93). Overall, we noted a 38% reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·56-0·69) in breast cancer incidence, and 42 women would need to be treated to prevent one breast cancer event in the first 10 years of follow-up. The reduction was larger in the first 5 years of follow-up than in years 5-10 (42%, HR 0·58, 0·51-0·66; p<0·0001 vs 25%, 0·75, 0·61-0·93; p=0·007), but we noted no heterogeneity between time periods. Thromboembolic events were significantly increased with all SERMs (odds ratio 1·73, 95% CI 1·47-2·05; p<0·0001). We recorded a significant reduction of 34% in vertebral fractures (0·66, 0·59-0·73), but only a small effect for non-vertebral fractures (0·93, 0·87-0·99). INTERPRETATION: For all SERMs, incidence of invasive oestrogen (ER)-positive breast cancer was reduced both during treatment and for at least 5 years after completion. Similar to other preventive interventions, careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to identify women who are most likely to benefit from these drugs. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy regimens that combine anthracyclines and taxanes result in improved disease-free and overall survival among women with operable lymph-node-positive breast cancer. The effectiveness of concurrent versus sequential regimens is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5351 patients with operable, node-positive, early-stage breast cancer to receive four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (sequential ACT); four cycles of doxorubicin and docetaxel (doxorubicin-docetaxel); or four cycles of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and docetaxel (concurrent ACT). The primary aims were to examine whether concurrent ACT was more effective than sequential ACT and whether the doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen would be as effective as the concurrent-ACT regimen. The secondary aims were to assess toxic effects and to correlate amenorrhea with outcomes in premenopausal women. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 73 months, overall survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year overall survival, 83%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio for death, 0.83; P=0.03) and the concurrent-ACT group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio, 0.86; P=0.09). Disease-free survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year disease-free survival, 74%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio for recurrence, a second malignant condition, or death, 0.80; P=0.001) and the concurrent-ACT group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio, 0.83; P=0.01). The doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen showed noninferiority to the concurrent-ACT regimen for overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14). Overall survival was improved in patients with amenorrhea for 6 months or more across all treatment groups, independently of estrogen-receptor status. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential ACT improved disease-free survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel or concurrent ACT, and it improved overall survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel. Amenorrhea was associated with improved survival regardless of the treatment and estrogen-receptor status. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003782.)

Erythrocyte omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids and mammographic breast density.

Diets low in omega-6 (n-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and high in omega-3 (n-3) PUFAs may protect against breast cancer development. Associations of PUFA intake with mammographic density, an intermediate marker of breast cancer risk, have been inconsistent; however, prior studies have relied on self-reported dietary PUFA intake. We examined the association between circulating erythrocyte n-6 and n-3 PUFAs with mammographic density in 248 postmenopausal women who were not taking exogenous hormones. PUFAs in erythrocytes were measured by gas-liquid chromatography, and mammographic density was assessed quantitatively by planimetry. Spearman's correlation coefficients and generalized linear models were used to evaluate the relationships between PUFA measures and mammographic density. None of the erythrocyte n-6 or n-3 PUFA measures were associated with percent density or dense breast area.

Nucleotide excision repair deficiency is intrinsic in sporadic stage I breast cancer.

The molecular etiology of breast cancer has proven to be remarkably complex. Most individual oncogenes are disregulated in only approximately 30% of breast tumors, indicating that either very few molecular alterations are common to the majority of breast cancers, or that they have not yet been identified. In striking contrast, we now show that 19 of 19 stage I breast tumors tested with the functional unscheduled DNA synthesis assay exhibited a significant deficiency of DNA nucleotide excision repair (NER) capacity relative to normal epithelial tissue from disease-free controls (n = 23). Loss of DNA repair capacity, including the complex, damage-comprehensive NER pathway, results in genomic instability, a hallmark of carcinogenesis. By microarray analysis, mRNA expression levels for 20 canonical NER genes were reduced in representative tumor samples versus normal. Significant reductions were observed in 19 of these genes analyzed by the more sensitive method of RNase protection. These results were confirmed at the protein level for five NER gene products. Taken together, these data suggest that NER deficiency may play an important role in the etiology of sporadic breast cancer, and that early-stage breast cancer may be intrinsically susceptible to genotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, such as cis-platinum, whose damage is remediated by NER. In addition, reduced NER capacity, or reduced expression of NER genes, could provide a basis for the development of biomarkers for the identification of tumorigenic breast epithelium.

An Unsupervised Machine Learning Approach to Evaluating the Association of Symptom Clusters With Adverse Outcomes Among Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Older adults with advanced cancer who have high pretreatment symptom severity often experience adverse events during cancer treatments. Unsupervised machine learning may help stratify patients into different risk groups. Objective: To evaluate whether clusters identified from baseline patient-reported symptom severity were associated with adverse outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the Geriatric Assessment Intervention for Reducing Toxicity in Older Patients With Advanced Cancer (GAP70+) Trial (2014-2019) included patients who completed the National Cancer Institute Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) before starting a new cancer treatment regimen and received care at community oncology sites across the United States. An unsupervised machine learning algorithm (k-means with Euclidean distance) clustered patients based on similarities of baseline symptom severities. Clustering variables included severity items of 24 PRO-CTCAE symptoms (range, 0-4; corresponding to none, mild, moderate, severe, and very severe). Total severity score was calculated as the sum of 24 items (range, 0-96). Whether the clusters were associated with unplanned hospitalization, death, and toxic effects was then examined. Analyses were conducted in January and February 2022. Exposures: Symptom severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Unplanned hospitalization over 3 months (primary), all-cause mortality over 1 year, and any clinician-rated grade 3 to 5 toxic effect over 3 months. Results: Of 718 enrolled patients, 706 completed baseline PRO-CTCAE and were included (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [5.5] years, 401 [56.8%] male patients; 51 [7.2%] Black and 619 [87.8%] non-Hispanic White patients; 245 [34.7%] with gastrointestinal cancer; 175 [24.8%] with lung cancer; mean [SD] impaired Geriatric Assessment domains, 4.5 [1.6]). The algorithm classified 310 (43.9%), 295 (41.8%), and 101 (14.3%) into low-, medium-, and high-severity clusters (within-cluster mean [SD] severity scores: low, 6.3 [3.4]; moderate, 16.6 [4.3]; high, 29.8 [7.8]; P < .001). Controlling for sociodemographic variables, clinical factors, study group, and practice site, compared with patients in the low-severity cluster, those in the moderate-severity cluster were more likely to experience hospitalization (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84; P = .046). Moderate- and high-severity clusters were associated with a higher risk of death (moderate: hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.69; P = .04; high: hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.43-2.78; P < .001), but not toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, unsupervised machine learning partitioned patients into distinct symptom severity clusters; patients with higher pretreatment severity were more likely to experience hospitalization and death. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054741.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Effects of a Geriatric Assessment Intervention on Patient-Reported Symptomatic Toxicity in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Providing a geriatric assessment (GA) summary with management recommendations to oncologists reduces clinician-rated toxicity in older patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment. This secondary analysis of a national cluster randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02054741) aims to assess the effects of a GA intervention on symptomatic toxicity measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, the study enrolled patients age ≥ 70 years, with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma and ≥ 1 GA domain impairment, who were initiating a regimen with high prevalence of toxicity. Patients completed PRO-CTCAEs, including the severity of 24 symptoms (11 classified as core symptoms) at enrollment, 4-6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Symptoms were scored as grade ≥ 2 (at least moderate) and grade ≥ 3 (severe/very severe). Symptomatic toxicity was determined by an increase in severity during treatment. A generalized estimating equation model was used to assess the effects of the GA intervention on symptomatic toxicity. RESULTS: Mean age was 77 years (range, 70-96 years), 43% were female, and 88% were White, 59% had GI or lung cancers, and 27% received prior chemotherapy. In 706 patients who provided PRO-CTCAEs at baseline, 86.1% reported at least one moderate symptom and 49.7% reported severe/very severe symptoms at regimen initiation. In 623 patients with follow-up PRO-CTCAE data, compared with usual care, fewer patients in the GA intervention arm reported grade ≥ 2 symptomatic toxicity (overall: 88.9% v 94.8%, P = .035; core symptoms: 83.4% v 91.7%, P = .001). The results for grade ≥ 3 toxicity were comparable but not significant (P > .05). CONCLUSION: In the presence of a high baseline symptom burden, a GA intervention for older patients with advanced cancer reduces patient-reported symptomatic toxicity.

Survival outcomes in pregnancy associated breast cancer: a retrospective case control study.

Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) has been defined as breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy or within one year of delivery. It is believed that after adjusting for age and stage, the 5-year survival rates are the same in both pregnant and nonpregnant women. We conducted a retrospective case-control study among patients treated at our institution between 1990 and 2005 to compare the 5-year survival outcomes for PABC with women treated for breast cancer who were not pregnant. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and log rank tests were used to assess the associations between OS, DFS and pregnancy status, HER-2 status, ER/PR status, and family history. The median age was 33 years (range 24-42) for both groups. Twenty-two (55%) patients with PABC were ER/PR receptor positive compared with 20 (50%) for the controls. Ninety percent of patients with PABC received chemotherapy compared with 87.5% in the nonpregnant group. 91.5% of patients with PABC had breast-conserving surgery and 8.5% had mastectomies compared with 86% and 14%, respectively, for the control group. The median OS was 4.9 years in the PABC group compared with 6 years for the controls (p = 0.02). The median DFS was 2.7 years for the PABC group compared with 5.1 years for the controls (p = 0.01). The most common site of relapse was bone for the PABC group (27%) and local recurrence (33%) for the controls. Univariate analysis revealed that OS and DFS were associated with pregnancy status, family history, ER/PR status, and stage. After adjusting for age and stage, PABC patients had higher risk of both death (p = 0.01) and recurrence (p = 0.02) compared with nonpregnant controls. Women with PABC had significantly shorter OS and DFS compared with nonpregnant age and stage-matched controls.

Preventive therapy for breast cancer: a consensus statement.

In March, 2010, a group of breast cancer experts met to develop a consensus statement on breast cancer prevention, with a focus on medical and therapeutic interventions. We present the conclusions in this Review. First we agreed that the term chemoprevention is inappropriate and suggested that the term preventive therapy better represents this feature of management. Two selective oestrogen-receptor modulators--tamoxifen and raloxifene--are so far the only medical options approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for preventive therapy. Of these tamoxifen has greater efficacy and can be used in premenopausal women, but raloxifene has fewer side-effects. Two newer drugs in this class, lasofoxifene and arzoxifene, also show efficacy and possibly a better overall risk-benefit profile, but need further assessment. Aromatase inhibitors might be more efficacious, and results of prevention trials are eagerly awaited. Newer agents, notably bisphosphonates and metformin, have shown promise in observational studies and need to be assessed in randomised prevention trials. Other agents, such as aspirin, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COX-2 inhibitors, retinoids, rexinoids, and dietary components have limited effects or are in the early phases of investigation. New contralateral tumours in women with breast cancer might be generally useful as a model for prevention, as has been seen for tamoxifen. If valid such a model would facilitate the design of simpler, cheaper, and better-focused trials for assessing new agents.

Life expectancy in older adults with advanced cancer: Evaluation of a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model.

OBJECTIVES: Oncologists estimate patients' prognosis to guide care. Evidence suggests oncologists tend to overestimate life expectancy, which can lead to care with questionable benefits. Information obtained from geriatric assessment may improve prognostication for older adults. In this study, we created a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model for older adults with advanced cancer and compared its performance to alternative models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile) capturing geriatric assessment and vital status up to one year for adults age ≥ 70 years with advanced cancer. Oncologists estimated life expectancy as 0-6 months, 7-12 months, and > 1 year. Three statistical models were developed: (1) a model including age, sex, cancer type, and stage (basic model), (2) basic model + Karnofsky Performance Status (≤50, 60-70, and 80+) (KPS model), and (3) basic model +16 binary indicators of geriatric assessment impairments (GA model). Cox regression was used to model one-year survival; c-indices and time-dependent c-statistics assessed model discrimination and stratified survival curves assessed model calibration. RESULTS: We included 484 participants; mean age was 75; 48% had gastrointestinal or lung cancer. Overall, 43% of patients died within one year. Oncologists classified prognosis accurately for 55% of patients, overestimated for 35%, and underestimated for 10%. C-indices were 0.61 (basic model), 0.62 (KPS model), and 0.63 (GA model). The GA model was well-calibrated. CONCLUSIONS: The GA model showed moderate discrimination for survival, similar to alternative models, but calibration was improved. Further research is needed to optimize geriatric assessment-based prognostic models for use in older adults with advanced cancer.

Caregiver-oncologist prognostic concordance, caregiving esteem, and caregiver outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Caregiver-oncologist concordance regarding the patient's prognosis is associated with worse caregiver outcomes (e.g., depressive symptoms), but mechanisms underpinning these associations are unclear. We explored whether caregiving esteem mediates these associations. METHODS: At enrollment, caregivers and oncologists used a 5-point ordinal scale to estimate patient survival; identical responses were considered concordant. At 4-6 weeks, caregivers completed an assessment of the extent to which caregiving imparts self-esteem (Caregiver Reaction Assessment self-esteem subscale; range 0-5; higher score indicates greater esteem). They also completed Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) for depressive symptoms, Distress Thermometer, and 12-Item Short Form Survey for quality of life (QoL). Mediation analysis with bootstrapping (PROCESS macro by Hayes) was used to estimate the extent to which caregiving mediated the effects of prognostic concordance on caregiver outcomes through caregiving esteem. RESULTS: Prognostic concordance occurred in 28% the caregiver-oncologist dyads; 85% of the discordance were due to caregivers estimating a longer patient's survival. At 4-6 weeks, mean caregiving esteem score was 4.4 (range 1.5-5.0). Lower caregiving esteem mediated the associations of concordance with higher PHQ-2 [indirect effect = 0.12; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.03, 0.27], greater distress (indirect effect =0.25; 95% CI 0.08, 0.48), and poorer QoL (indirect effect = -1.50; 95% CI -3.06, -0.41). Caregiving esteem partially mediated 39%, 64%, and 48% of the associations between caregiver-oncologist concordance and PHQ-2, distress, and SF-12, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver-oncologist concordance was associated with lower caregiving esteem. Lower caregiving esteem mediated the negative relationship between caregiver-oncologist concordance and caregiver outcomes.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines. Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021. Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic. Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Gynecologic conditions in participants in the NSABP breast cancer prevention study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR).

OBJECTIVE: This study reports the gynecologic conditions in postmenopausal women (intact uterus on enrollment) in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR)/P-2 trial. STUDY DESIGN: This study, with a median follow-up period of 81 months, evaluated the incidence rates/risks of gynecologic conditions among women who were treated with tamoxifen and raloxifene. RESULTS: Compared with women who received tamoxifen therapy, women who received raloxifene therapy had a lower incidence of uterine cancer (relative risk, 0.55)/endometrial hyperplasia (relative risk, 0.19), leiomyomas (relative risk, 0.55), ovarian cysts (relative risk, 0.60), and endometrial polyps (relative risk, 0.30) and had fewer procedures performed. Women receiving tamoxifen therapy had more hot flashes (P < .0001), vaginal discharge (P < .0001), and vaginal bleeding (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that tamoxifen has more of an estrogenic effect on the gynecologic reproductive organs. These effects should be considered in counseling women on options for breast cancer prevention.