Lymphedema Rates Following Axillary Lymph Node Dissection With and Without Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction: A Prospective Trial.

BACKGROUND: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) has been proposed to decrease lymphedema rates. The primary aim of our study was to determine whether ILR decreased the incidence of lymphedema in patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). METHODS: We conducted a two-site pragmatic study of ALND with or without ILR, employing surgeon-level cohort assignment, based on breast surgeons' preferred standard practice. Lymphedema was assessed by limb volume measurements, patient self-reporting, provider documentation, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. RESULTS: Overall, 230 patients with breast cancer were enrolled; on an intention-to-treat basis, 99 underwent ALND and 131 underwent ALND with ILR. Of the 131 patients preoperatively planned for ILR, 115 (87.8%) underwent ILR; 72 (62.6%) were performed by one breast surgical oncologist and 43 (37.4%) by fellowship-trained microvascular plastic surgeons. ILR was associated with an increased risk of lymphedema when defined as ≥10% limb volume change on univariable analysis, but not on multivariable analysis, after propensity score adjustment. We did not find a statistically significant difference in limb volume measurements between the two cohorts when including subclinical lymphedema (≥5% inter-limb volume change), nor did we see a difference in grade between the two cohorts on an intent-to-treat or treatment received basis. For all patients, considering ascertainment strategies of patient self-reporting, provider documentation, and ICD-10 codes, as a single binary outcome measure, there was no significant difference in lymphedema rates between those undergoing ILR or not. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in lymphedema rates between patients undergoing ALND with or without ILR.

The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort study: Design, baseline characteristics, and early outcomes.

To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18-99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African-Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population-based SEER data (2015-2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population-based SEER rates for indolent B-cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T-cell lymphomas, but were 10%-15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B-cell subtypes (diffuse large B-cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

PRO-Angoff method for remote standard setting: establishing clinical thresholds for the upper digestive disease tool.

BACKGROUND: The Upper Digestive Disease (UDD) Tool™ is used to monitor symptom frequency, intensity, and interference across nine symptom domains and includes two Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains assessing physical and mental health. This study aimed to establish cut scores for updated symptom domains through standard setting exercises and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of virtual standard setting. METHODS: The extended Angoff method was employed to determine cut scores. Subject matter experts refined performance descriptions for symptom control categories and achieved consensus. Domains were categorized into good, moderate, and poor symptom control. Two cut scores were established, differentiating good vs. moderate and moderate vs. poor. Panelists estimated average scores for 100 borderline patients per item. Cut scores were computed based on the sum of the average ratings for individual questions, converted to 0-100 scale. RESULTS: Performance descriptions were refined. Panelists discussed that interpretation of the scores should take into account the timing of symptoms after surgery and patient populations, and the importance of items asking symptom frequency, severity, and interference with daily life. The good/moderate cut scores ranged from 21.3 to 35.0 (mean 28.6, SD 3.6) across domains, and moderate/poor ranged from 47.5 to 71.3 (mean 54.5, SD 7.0). CONCLUSIONS: Panelists were confident in the virtual standard setting process, expecting valid cut scores. Future studies can further validate the cut scores using patient perspectives and collect patient and physician preferences for displaying contextual items on patient- and physician-facing dashboard.

Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a web-based tool for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to communicate concerns about treatment burden to their healthcare providers. METHODS: Patients and providers from primary-care clinics participated. We conducted focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool to screen for treatment burden by reviewing domains and items from a previously validated measure, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS). Following review of the prototype, a quasi-experimental pilot study determined acceptability of using the tool in clinical practice. The study protocol was modified to accommodate limitations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with MCC and 18 providers participated in focus groups to review existing PETS content. The pilot tool (named PETS-Now) consisted of eight domains (Living Healthy, Health Costs, Monitoring Health, Medicine, Personal Relationships, Getting Healthcare, Health Information, and Medical Equipment) with each domain represented by a checklist of potential concerns. Administrative burden was minimized by limiting patients to selection of one domain. To test acceptability, 17 primary-care providers first saw 92 patients under standard care (control) conditions followed by another 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). Each treatment burden domain was selected at least once by patients in the intervention. No significant differences were observed in overall care quality between patients in the control and intervention conditions with mean care quality rated high in both groups (9.3 and 9.2, respectively, out of 10). There were no differences in provider impressions of patient encounters under the two conditions with providers reporting that patient concerns were addressed in 95% of the visits in both conditions. Most intervention group patients (94%) found that the PETS-Now was easy to use and helped focus the conversation with the provider on their biggest concern (98%). Most providers (81%) felt they had learned something new about the patient from the PETS-Now. CONCLUSION: The PETS-Now holds promise for quickly screening and monitoring treatment burden in people with MCC and may provide information for care planning. While acceptable to patients and clinicians, integration of information into the electronic medical record should be prioritized.

Recruitment strategies and consent rates in a national prospective colorectal cancer screening cohort: results from year 1 of the Voyage Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the optimal incentive protocol for maximising participation while managing study costs during the Voyage trial. DESIGN: Prospective cohort (Voyage trial) of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality outcomes in individuals screened with multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) served as the population. A subset was randomised to receive postage stamps as a pre-consent incentive, or as a post-consent incentive after completion of the consent and questionnaire. Descriptive statistics from year 1 are reported. RESULTS: During year 1 of the Voyage trial, a total of 600 258 individuals with mt-sDNA orders received at Exact Sciences Laboratories were randomly selected and invited to participate. Of those, 26 429 (4.4%) opted in, 14 365 of whom (54.3%) consented. The opt-in and consent samples were similar to the target population with respect to sex but differed by geographic residence and age (p<0.001). For the embedded incentive experiment, 2333 were randomised to the pre-incentive arm, while 2342 were randomised to the post-incentive arm. Overall consent rate in the incentive trial was 56.4% (60.9% for the pre-consent incentive arm (1421/2333) vs 52.0% for the post-consent incentive arm (1217/2342), p<0.001). Cost reduction was observed for the pre-consent incentive group, and higher response rates were seen among older versus younger individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-consent incentive option was associated with a higher participation rate and lower costs and was used for the remainder of study recruitment. CRC incidence and mortality vary with age; thus, adjusting for differential participation by age and region will be important in analyses of Voyage data. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04124406.

Talazoparib in Patients With Solid Tumors With BRCA1/2 Mutation: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study.

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with various solid tumors with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations treated with talazoparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, measurable disease (RECIST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Patients with germline BRCA-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were not eligible for this study. Primary end point was disease control (DC) determined by investigator assessment of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power = 0.82; α = .10). Secondary end points were OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (20 cancer types) with BRCA1/2 mutations were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2021 and collapsed into a single histology pooled cohort for analysis. All patients were evaluable for efficacy. One complete response, nine partial response, and six SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 57% (one-sided 90% CI, 43 to 100) and 36% (95% CI, 19 to 56), respectively. The null hypothesis of a 15% DC rate was rejected (P < .001). Patients with OR had the following tumor types: breast (2), nonmelanoma skin, mesothelioma, stomach, uterus, non-small cell lung cancer, ovary, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreas. Thirteen patients had at least one grade 3-5 adverse event (AE) or serious AE at least possibly related to talazoparib. All were consistent with the drug label except bilirubin increase and hyponatremia (both grade 3 AEs). CONCLUSION: Talazoparib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRCA1/2 mutations, including cancer types for which poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors are not yet US Food and Drug Administration-approved.

Acupuncture for Chronic Radiation-Induced Xerostomia in Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with head and neck cancer who undergo radiotherapy can develop chronic radiation-induced xerostomia. Prior acupuncture studies were single center and rated as having high risk of bias, making it difficult to know the benefits of acupuncture for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Objective: To compare true acupuncture (TA), sham acupuncture (SA), and standard oral hygiene (SOH) for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, blinded, 3-arm, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 29, 2013, and June 9, 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 9, 2022, through May 17, 2023. Patients reporting grade 2 or 3 radiation-induced xerostomia 12 months or more postradiotherapy for head and neck cancer were recruited from community-based cancer centers across the US that were part of the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base. Participants had received bilateral radiotherapy with no history of xerostomia. Interventions: Participants received SOH and were randomized to TA, SA, or SOH only. Participants in the TA and SA cohorts were treated 2 times per week for 4 weeks. Those experiencing a minor response received another 4 weeks of treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported outcomes for xerostomia (Xerostomia Questionnaire, primary outcome) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) were collected at baseline, 4 (primary time point), 8, 12, and 26 weeks. All analyses were intention to treat. Results: A total of 258 patients (201 men [77.9%]; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [9.16] years), participated from 33 sites across 13 states. Overall, 86 patients were assigned to each study arm. Mean (SD) years from diagnosis was 4.21 (3.74) years, 67.1% (n = 173) had stage IV disease. At week 4, Xerostomia Questionnaire scores revealed significant between-group differences, with lower Xerostomia Questionnaire scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 50.6; SOH: 57.3; difference, -6.67; 95% CI, -11.08 to -2.27; P = .003), and differences between TA and SA (TA: 50.6; SA: 55.0; difference, -4.41; 95% CI, -8.62 to -0.19; P = .04) yet did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons. There was no significant difference between SA and SOH. Group differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores revealed statistically significant group differences at week 4, with higher scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 101.6; SOH: 97.7; difference, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.43-6.38; P = .002) and at week 12, with higher scores with TA vs SA (TA: 102.1; SA: 98.4; difference, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.10-6.18; P = .005) and TA vs SOH (TA: 102.1; SOH: 97.4; difference, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.99-7.23; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial suggest that TA was more effective in treating chronic radiation-induced xerostomia 1 or more years after the end of radiotherapy than SA or SOH. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02589938.