Use of web-based decision support to improve informed choice for chemoprevention: a qualitative analysis of pre-implementation interviews (SWOG S1904).

BACKGROUND: Women with high-risk breast lesions, such as atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), have a 4- to tenfold increased risk of breast cancer compared to women with non-proliferative breast disease. Despite high-quality data supporting chemoprevention, uptake remains low. Interventions are needed to break down barriers. METHODS: The parent trial, MiCHOICE, is a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of patient and provider decision support tools to improve informed choice about chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. For this pre-implementation analysis, 25 providers participated in semi-structured interviews prior to accessing decision support tools. Interviews sought to understand attitudes/beliefs and barriers/facilitators to chemoprevention. RESULTS: Interviews with 25 providers (18 physicians and 7 advanced practice providers) were included. Providers were predominantly female (84%), white (72%), and non-Hispanic (88%). Nearly all providers (96%) had prescribed chemoprevention for eligible patients. Three themes emerged in qualitative analysis. The first theme describes providers' confidence in chemoprevention and the utility of decision support tools. The second theme elucidates barriers to chemoprevention, including time constraints, risk communication and perceptions of patients' fear of side effects and anxiety. The third theme is the need for early implementation of decision support tools. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study suggests that providers were interested in the early inclusion of decision aids (DA) in their chemoprevention discussion workflow. The DAs may help overcome certain barriers which were elucidated in these interviews, including patient level concerns about side effects, clinic time constraints and difficulty communicating risk. A multi-faceted intervention with a DA as one active component may be needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the NIH clinical trial registry, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04496739.

A community engagement training program for basic and translational cancer researchers.

PURPOSE: There is an increasing awareness of the importance of patient engagement in cancer research, but many basic and translational researchers have never been trained to do so. To address this unmet need, a 1-year patient engagement training program for researchers was developed. METHODS: Eleven researchers and eleven paired research advocates participated. This program, designed for virtual delivery, included 3 didactic modules focused on (1) Community Outreach and Engagement principles and methods, (2) Communication skills, and (3) Team Science. This was followed by longitudinal projects to be completed by the researcher/advocate pairs, including learning about the research project, and co-authoring abstracts, manuscripts and grant proposals. Monthly group meetings allowed pairs to share their experiences. The program culminated in the pairs creating and presenting oral abstracts for the University of Kansas Cancer Center's Annual Research Symposium. RESULTS: All participants indicated that the modules had a positive impact on their ability to collaborate in research. Both researcher self-evaluations and patient advocate evaluations of their researcher partner showed an improvement in researcher communication competency. Results from the Patient Engagement in Research Scale showed that advocates were highly engaged. Within 1 year after program completion, participating pairs have completed four abstracts and 9 grant proposals. CONCLUSION: The program will be modified based on participant feedback, and can be adapted for future cohorts if an increased number of sessions per month and shortened program duration are desired. The program's virtual format allows scalability across institutions to potentially benefit large cohorts of researchers.

Upper extremity disability and quality of life after breast cancer treatment in the Greater Plains Collaborative clinical research network.

PURPOSE: Chronic upper extremity disability (UED) is common after breast cancer treatment but under-identified and under-treated. Although UED has been linked to quality of life (QoL), the role of UED as mediator between contemporary treatment practices and QoL has not been quantified. This investigation describes UED in a contemporary sample of breast cancer patients and examines its relationship with personal and treatment factors and QoL. METHODS: Eight hundred and thirty-three women diagnosed at eight medical institutions during 2013-2014 with microscopically confirmed ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive stage I-III breast cancer were surveyed an average of 22 months after diagnosis. UED was measured with a modified QuickDASH and QoL with the FACT-B. The questionnaire also collected treatments, sociodemographic information, comorbidity, body mass index, and a 3-item health literacy screener. RESULTS: Women who received post-mastectomy radiation and chemotherapy experienced significantly worse UED and QoL. Women who had lower income, lower health literacy and prior diabetes, arthritis or shoulder diagnoses had worse UED. Patients with worse UED reported significantly worse QoL. Income and health literacy were independently associated with QoL after adjustment for UED but treatment and prior conditions were not, indicating mediation by UED. UED mediated 52-79% of the effect of mastectomy-based treatments on QoL as compared with unilateral mastectomy without radiation. UED and QoL did not differ by type of axillary surgery or post-mastectomy reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: A large portion of treatment effect on QoL is mediated by UED. Rehabilitation practices that prevent and alleviate UED are likely to improve QoL for breast cancer survivors.

Patient vs. Community Engagement: Emerging Issues.

BACKGROUND: The value proposition of including patients at each step of the research process is that patient perspectives and preferences can have a positive impact on both the science and the outcomes of comparative effectiveness research. How to accomplish engagement and the extent to which approaches to community engagement inform strategies for effective patient engagement need to be examined to address conducting and accelerating comparative effectiveness research. OBJECTIVES: To examine how various perspectives and diverse training lead investigators and patients to conflicting positions on how best to advance patient engagement. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative methods were used to collect perspectives and models of engagement from a diverse group of patients, researchers and clinicians. The project culminated with a workshop involving these stakeholders. The workshop used a novel approach, combining World Café and Future Search techniques, to compare and contrast aspects of patient engagement and community engagement. SUBJECTS: Participants included patients, researchers, and clinicians. MEASURES: Group and workshop discussions provided the consensus on topics related to patient and community engagement. RESULTS: Participants developed and refined a framework that compares and contrasts features associated with patient and community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient and community engagement may share a similar approach to engagement based on trust and mutual benefit, there may be distinctive aspects that require a unique lexicon, strategies, tactics, and activities.

Roadmap to engagement: Bringing patient partners into cancer research and beyond.

The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KU Cancer Center) initiated an engagement program to leverage the lived experience of individuals and families with cancer. KU Cancer Center faculty, staff, and patient partners built an infrastructure to achieve a patient-designed, patient-led, and research-informed engagement program called Patient and Investigator Voices Organizing Together (PIVOT). This special communication offers an engagement roadmap that can be replicated, scaled, and adopted at other cancer centers and academic health systems. PIVOT demonstrates that collaboration among academic leaders, investigators, and people with a lived experience yields a patient-centered, vibrant environment that enriches the research enterprise.

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of the Lignan Secoisolariciresinol Diglucoside in Premenopausal Women at Increased Risk for Development of Breast Cancer.

We conducted a multiinstitutional, placebo-controlled phase IIB trial of the lignan secoisolariciresinol diglucoside (SDG) found in flaxseed. Benign breast tissue was acquired by random periareolar fine needle aspiration (RPFNA) from premenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. Those with hyperplasia and ≥2% Ki-67 positive cells were eligible for randomization 2:1 to 50 mg SDG/day (Brevail) versus placebo for 12 months with repeat bio-specimen acquisition. The primary endpoint was difference in change in Ki-67 between randomization groups. A total of 180 women were randomized, with 152 ultimately evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median baseline Ki-67 was 4.1% with no difference between arms. Median Ki-67 change was -1.8% in the SDG arm (P = 0.001) and -1.2% for placebo (P = 0.034); with no significant difference between arms. As menstrual cycle phase affects proliferation, secondary analysis was performed for 117 women who by progesterone levels were in the same phase of the menstrual cycle at baseline and off-study tissue sampling. The significant Ki-67 decrease persisted for SDG (median = -2.2%; P = 0.002) but not placebo (median = -1.0%). qRT-PCR was performed on 77 pairs of tissue specimens. Twenty-two had significant ERα gene expression changes (<0.5 or >2.0) with 7 of 10 increases in placebo and 10 of 12 decreases for SDG (P = 0.028), and a difference between arms (P = 0.017). Adverse event incidence was similar in both groups, with no evidence that 50 mg/day SDG is harmful. Although the proliferation biomarker analysis showed no difference between the treatment group and the placebo, the trial demonstrated use of SDG is tolerable and safe.

Susan G. Komen Big Data for Breast Cancer Initiative: How Patient Advocacy Organizations Can Facilitate Using Big Data to Improve Patient Outcomes.

Integrating different types of data, including electronic health records, imaging data, administrative and claims databases, large data repositories, the Internet of Things, genomics, and other omics data, is both a challenge and an opportunity that must be tackled head on. We explore some of the challenges and opportunities in optimizing data integration to accelerate breast cancer discovery and improve patient outcomes. Susan G. Komen convened three meetings (2015, 2017, and 2018) with various stakeholders to discuss challenges, opportunities, and next steps to enhance the use of big data in the field of breast cancer. Meeting participants agreed that big data approaches can enhance the identification of better therapies, improve outcomes, reduce disparities, and optimize precision medicine. One challenge is that databases must be shared, linked with each other, standardized, and interoperable. Patients want to be active participants in research and their own care, and to control how their data are used. Many patients have privacy concerns and do not understand how sharing their data can help to effectively drive discovery. Public education is essential, and breast cancer researchers who are skilled in using and analyzing big data are needed. Patient advocacy groups can play multiple roles to help maximize and leverage big data to better serve patients. Komen is committed to educating patients on big data issues, encouraging data sharing by all stakeholders, assisting in training the next generation of data science breast cancer researchers, and funding research projects that will use real-life data in real time to revolutionize the way breast cancer is understood and treated.

Reevaluating the accelerated approval process for oncology drugs.

For a new therapy to qualify for the accelerated approval pathway, it must treat a serious disease for which there is "unmet medical need"--defined as providing a therapy where none exists or providing a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy. The increasing number of available therapies, coupled with the lack of accepted endpoints considered "reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit" and the lack of clarity early in development about circumstances in which a new product will qualify for accelerated approval, is pushing developers to pursue accelerated approval in heavily pretreated patients to fulfill an unmet need. To optimize the accelerated approval pathway, we propose here a reevaluation of what constitutes "unmet medical need" and "available therapy" in oncology. We also discuss ways for new endpoints to become qualified for use in supporting accelerated approval, and propose a structured process for pursuing accelerated approval.