Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults? METHODS: We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

Home-based versus supervised group exercise in men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: A randomized controlled trial and economic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Differences between health outcomes, participation/adoption, and cost-effectiveness of home-based (HOME) interventions and supervised group-based training (GROUP) in men with prostate cancer (PC) on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are currently unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy, adherence, and cost-effectiveness of HOME versus GROUP in men on ADT for PC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicentre, 2-arm non-inferiority randomized controlled trial and companion cost-effectiveness analysis. Men with PC on ADT were recruited from August 2016 to March 2020 from four Canadian centres and randomized 1:1 to GROUP or HOME. All study participants engaged in aerobic and resistance training four to five days weekly for six months. Fatigue [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F)] and functional endurance [6-min walk test (6MWT)] at six months were the co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, physical fitness, body composition, blood markers, sedentary behaviour, and adherence. Between-group differences in primary outcomes were compared to margins of 3 points for FACT-F and 40 m for 6MWT using a Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Secondary outcomes were compared with ANCOVA, Costs included Ministry of Health costs, program costs, patient out-of-pocket, and time costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT02834416. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants (mean [standard deviation (SD)] age, 70 [9.0] years) were enrolled (GROUP n = 20; HOME n = 18). There was an 89.8% probability that HOME was non-inferior to GROUP for both fatigue and functional endurance and a 9.5% probability that HOME reduced fatigue compared to GROUP (mean [SD] change, 12.1 [8.1] vs 3.6 [6.1]; p = 0.040) at six months. Adherence was similar among study arms. HOME was cost-saving (mean difference: -$4122) relative to GROUP. DISCUSSION: A HOME exercise intervention appears non-inferior to GROUP for fatigue and functional endurance and requires fewer resources to implement. HOME appears to ameliorate fatigue more than GROUP, but has comparable effects on other clinically relevant outcomes. Although limited by sample size and attrition, these results support further assessment of home-based programs.

The development of an electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive health assessment for my plan (CHAMP).

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) provides information on key health domains of older adults and is recommended to help inform cancer treatment decisions and cancer care. However, GA is not feasible in many health institutions due to lack of geriatric staff and/or resources. To increase accessibility to GA and improve treatment decision making for older adults with cancer (≥65 years), we developed a self-reported, electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive Assessment for My Plan (CHAMP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Older adults with cancer were invited to join user-centered design sessions to develop the layout and content of the tool. Subsequently, they participated in usability testing to test the usability of the tool (ease of use, acceptability, etc.). Design sessions were also conducted with oncology clinicians (oncologists and nurses) to develop the tool's clinician interface. GA assessment questions and GA recommendations were guided by a systematic review and Delphi expert panel. RESULTS: A total of seventeen older adults participated in the study. Participants were mainly males (82.4%) and 75% were aged 75 years and older. Nine oncology clinicians participated in design sessions. Older adults and clinicians agreed that the tool was user-friendly. Domains in the final CHAMP tool (with questions and recommendations) included functional status, falls risk, cognitive impairment, nutrition, medication review, social supports, depression, substance use disorder, and miscellaneous items. DISCUSSION: CHAMP was designed for use by older adults and oncologists and may enhance access to GA for older adults with cancer. The next phase of the CHAMP study will involve field validation in oncology clinics.

Preference-based versus randomized controlled trial in prostate cancer survivors: Comparison of recruitment, adherence, attrition, and clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Patients' unwillingness to be randomized to a mode of exercise may partly explain their poor recruitment, adherence, and attrition in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise in oncology. It is unknown whether a preference-based trial can improve recruitment, adherence, retention, and clinical outcomes compared to a RCT of the same exercise interventions. Objective: We assessed the effects of a 2-arm exercise preference trial on adherence and clinical outcomes compared to a similar 2-arm RCT in men with prostate cancer (PC). Methods: This was a two-arm preference-based trial of group-based training (GROUP) or home-based training (HOME). PC survivors on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) who declined randomization to the RCT but chose to participate in a preference trial were recruited in four Canadian centers. All study participants engaged in aerobic and resistance training, 4-5 days weekly for 6 months, aiming for 150 minutes/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. The primary outcomes were changes from baseline to 6 months in fatigue and functional endurance. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, physical fitness, body composition, blood markers, and adherence. Linear mixed models were used to assess the effects of HOME versus GROUP on primary outcomes. In pooled preference and RCT data, the selection effect (i.e., difference between those who were and were not willing to be randomized) and treatment effect (i.e., difference between GROUP and HOME) were estimated using linear regression. Results and conclusion: Fifty-four participants (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [8.6] years) were enrolled (GROUP n=17; HOME n=37). Comparable effects on primary and secondary outcomes were observed following GROUP or HOME in the preference-based trial. Adherence was similar between preference and RCT participants. However, attrition was higher in the RCT (50.0% vs. 27.8%, p= 0.04). Compared to GROUP, HOME was more effective in ameliorating fatigue (mean difference: +5.2, 95%CI=1.3 to 9.3 p=0.01) in pooled preference and RCT data. A preference-based trial results in comparable observed effects on clinical outcomes and adherence and lower attrition compared with a RCT of the same exercise interventions in PC survivors on ADT. Given the appeals of preference-based trials to study participants, additional studies are warranted. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT03335631).

Factors predicting gains in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in prostate cancer survivors on androgen deprivation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Whether individual, environmental, and psychosocial factors predict changes in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is poorly addressed in prostate cancer (PC) survivors undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). PURPOSE: This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial examined changes in MVPA following a supervised personal training (PT), supervised group-based (GROUP) program, or a home-based, smartphone-assisted exercise (HOME) intervention in PC survivors on ADT and explored individual, environmental, and psychosocial predictors of MVPA. METHODS: PC survivors on ADT underwent aerobic and resistance training for 6 months via PT, GROUP, or HOME. MVPA was captured via accelerometers and the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire. Changes in MVPA between groups were assessed using linear regression. The following predictors of MVPA were examined using Spearman correlations: the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS); the Planning, Attitudes, and Behaviours (PAB) scale; the Relatedness to Others in Physical Activity Scale (ROPAS); and individual factors at baseline. RESULTS: Participants (n = 37) were 69.4 ± 6.5 years old and 78.4% were on ADT for ≥ 3 months. Changes in accelerometry-based bouts and MVPA as well as self-reported MVPA did not differ between groups at 6 months. The Aesthetics domain of the NEWS questionnaire at baseline was the strongest predictor of positive MVPA changes (r = .66). Attitude (r = .64), planning (r = .57), and motivation (r = .50) at baseline were also predictive of engaging in higher MVPA throughout the intervention. CONCLUSION: Changes in objective MVPA were modest. Additional emphasis on specific psychosocial and individual factors is important to inform theory-based interventions that can foster PA behavior change in PC survivors on ADT. Registration # NCT02046837.

The Development of Geriatric Assessment and Intervention Guidelines for an Online Geriatric Assessment Tool: A Canadian Modified Delphi Panel Study.

BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines available for what assessment tools to use in a patient's self-completed online geriatric assessment (GA) with management recommendations. Therefore, we used a modified Delphi approach with Canadian expert clinicians to develop a consensus online GA plus recommendations tool. METHODS: The panel consisted of experts in geriatrics, oncology, nursing, and pharmacy. Experts were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of assessments and interventions to be included in an online GA for patients. The items included in the first round were based on guidelines for in-person GA and literature review. The first two rounds were conducted using an online survey. A virtual 2 h meeting was held to discuss the items where no consensus was reached and then voted on in the final round. RESULTS: 34 experts were invited, and 32 agreed to participate. In round 1, there were 85 items; in round 2, 50 items; and in round 3, 25 items. The final tool consists of fall history, assistive device use, weight loss, medication review, need help taking medication, social supports, depressive symptoms, self-reported vision and hearing, and current smoking status and alcohol use. CONCLUSION: This first multidisciplinary consensus on online GA will benefit research and clinical care for older adults with cancer.

Providing Medical Information to Older Adults in a Web-Based Environment: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a disease that predominantly affects older adults, and several organizations recommend the completion of a geriatric assessment to help with cancer treatment decision-making. Owing to a shortage of geriatric teams and the vast number of older adults diagnosed with cancer each year, a web-based geriatric assessment may improve access to geriatric assessment for older adults. We systematically reviewed the literature to obtain the latest evidence for the design of our web-based geriatric assessment tool Comprehensive Health Assessment for My Plan. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to probe the following questions: what is the impact of providing health test results to older adults in a web-based environment without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes, including satisfaction, perceived harm, empowerment, quality of life, and health care use (eg, hospitalization, physician visits, emergency room visits, and costs), and what recommendations do older adults and developers have for designing future apps or websites for older adults? METHODS: This systematic review was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement. Studies were limited to publications in English that examined a web-based tool that provided test results to older adults (aged ≥65 years) without the presence of a health care provider. A health sciences librarian performed the search on November 29, 2019, on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2018. The findings are summarized narratively and in tabular format. RESULTS: A total of 26,898 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers, of which 94 studies were selected for a full-text review, and 9 studies were included in this review. There were only 2 randomized controlled trials of high quality that explored the effects of receiving health care results on the web via eHealth tools for older adults or provided evidence-based recommendations for designing such tools. Older adults were generally satisfied with receiving screening results via eHealth tools, and several studies suggested that receiving health screening results electronically improved participants' quality of life. However, user interfaces that were not designed with older adults in mind and older adults' lack of confidence in navigating eHealth tools proved challenging to eHealth uptake and use. All 9 studies included in this systematic review made recommendations on how to design eHealth tools that are intuitive and useful for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: eHealth tools should incorporate specific elements to ensure usability for older adults. However, more research is required to fully elucidate the impact of receiving screening and results via eHealth tools without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes in this target population.

Effects of six months of aerobic and resistance training on metabolic markers and bone mineral density in older men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with metabolic perturbations and declines in bone mineral density (BMD). Exercise interventions provide multiple health benefits to older men on ADT; however, their effect on metabolic biomarkers and BMD remains unclear. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a phase II randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the effect of a six-month moderate-intensity aerobic and resistance exercise program on metabolic biomarkers and BMD in men on ADT. Participants were randomized to three different exercise delivery models: personal training; supervised group exercise; or home-based exercise. Analysis of metabolic biomarkers (lipid profile and glucose) was conducted at baseline, six and twelve months. BMD of the lumbar spine, femoral neck and hip were assessed at baseline and twelve months. Both within- and between-group analyses of change scores adjusted for baseline values were performed. RESULTS: Forty-eight men (mean age 69.8y) were enrolled. Baseline values of metabolic biomarkers and BMD were comparable between groups and the three groups were combined for the primary analysis. At six months, no changes in metabolic biomarkers were found; however, at twelve months low-density lipoprotein (+0.28 mmol/L; 95%CI, 0.04 to 0.51) and total cholesterol (+0.31 mmol/L; 95%CI, 0.00 to 0.61) were significantly increased from baseline. No changes were found in BMD. In a secondary between-group analysis, no improvements were observed for any metabolic biomarker or BMD measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Different exercise prescription parameters (modality and intensity) or combined diet/exercise interventions may be needed to foster favorable metabolic and skeletal adaptations during ADT.

A phase II randomized controlled trial of three exercise delivery methods in men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence demonstrates that 1:1 personal training (PT) improves many adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether less resource-intensive exercise delivery models are as effective remains to be established. We determined the feasibility of conducting a multi-center non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing PT with supervised group (GROUP) and home-based (HOME) exercise programs, and obtained preliminary efficacy estimates for GROUP and HOME compared to PT on quality of life (QOL) and physical fitness. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer on ADT were recruited from one of two experienced Canadian centres and randomized 1:1:1 to PT, GROUP, or HOME. Randomization was stratified by length of ADT use and site. Participants completed moderate intensity aerobic and resistance exercises 4-5 days per week for 6 months with a target 150 min per week of exercise. Exercise prescriptions were individualized and progressed throughout the trial. Feasibility endpoints included recruitment, retention, adherence, and participant satisfaction. The efficacy endpoints QOL, fatigue, and fitness (VO2 peak, grip strength, and timed chair stands) in GROUP and HOME were compared for non-inferiority to PT. Descriptive analyses were used for feasibility endpoints. Between-group differences for efficacy endpoints were examined using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: Fifty-nine participants (mean age 69.9 years) were enrolled. The recruitment rate was 25.4% and recruitment was slower than projected. Retention was 71.2%. Exercise adherence as measured through attendance was high for supervised sessions but under 50% by self-report and accelerometry. Satisfaction was high and there was no difference in this measure between all three groups. Between-group differences (comparing both GROUP and HOME to PT) were smaller than the minimum clinically important difference on most measures of QOL, fatigue, and fitness. However, two of six outcomes for GROUP and four of six outcomes for HOME had a > 20% probability of being inferior for GROUP. CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility endpoints were generally met. Both GROUP and HOME interventions in men with PC on ADT appeared to be similar to PT for multiple efficacy outcomes, although conclusions are limited by a small sample size and cost considerations have not been incorporated. Efforts need to be targeted to improving recruitment and adherence. A larger trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02046837 . Date of registration: January 20, 2014.

Protocol for a phase III RCT and economic analysis of two exercise delivery methods in men with PC on ADT.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat prostate cancer. However, side effects of ADT often lead to reduced quality of life and physical function. Existing evidence demonstrates that exercise can ameliorate multiple treatment-related side effects for men on ADT, yet adherence rates are often low. The method of exercise delivery (e.g., supervised group in-centre vs. individual home-based) may be important from clinical and economic perspectives; however, few studies have compared different delivery models. Additionally, long-term exercise adherence and an understanding of predictors of adherence are critical to achieving sustained benefits, but such data are lacking. The primary aim of this multi-centre phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial is to determine whether a home-based delivery model is non-inferior to a group-based delivery model in terms of benefits in fatigue and fitness in this population. Two other key aims include examining cost-effectiveness and long-term adherence. METHODS: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer of any stage, starting or continuing on ADT for at least 6 months, fluent in English, and living close to a study centre are eligible. Participants complete five assessments over 12 months (baseline and every 3 months during the 6-month intervention and 6-month follow-up phases), including a fitness assessment and self-report questionnaires. Biological outcomes are collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A total of 200 participants will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to supervised group training or home-based training supported by smartphones, health coaches, and Fitbit technology. Participants are asked to complete 4 to 5 exercise sessions per week, incorporating aerobic, resistance and flexibility training. Outcomes include fatigue, quality of life, fitness measures, body composition, biological outcomes, and program adherence. Cost information will be obtained using patient diary-based self-report and utilities via the EQ-5D. DISCUSSION: To disseminate publicly funded exercise programs widely, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness have to be demonstrated. The goals of this trial are to provide these data along with an increased understanding of adherence to exercise among men with prostate cancer receiving ADT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Registration # NCT02834416 ). Registration date was June 2, 2016.

Improving bone health in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy: Results of a randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve bone health care in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are not consistently implemented. The authors conducted a phase 2 randomized controlled trial of 2 education-based models-of-care interventions to determine their feasibility and ability to improve bone health care. METHODS: A single-center parallel-group randomized controlled trial of men with prostate cancer who were receiving ADT was performed. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to 1) a patient bone health pamphlet and brief recommendations for their family physician (BHP+FP); 2) a BHP and support from a bone health care coordinator (BHP+BHCC); or 3) usual care. The primary efficacy outcome was receipt of a bone mineral density (BMD) test within 6 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes included guideline-appropriate calcium and vitamin D use and bisphosphonate prescriptions for men at high fracture risk. Feasibility endpoints included recruitment, retention, satisfaction, contamination, and outcome capture. The main analysis used logistic regression with a 1-sided P of .10. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02043236). RESULTS: A total of 119 men were recruited. The BHP+BHCC strategy was associated with a greater percentage of men undergoing a BMD test compared with the usual-care group (78% vs 36%; P<.001). BMD ordering also was found to be increased with the BHP+FP strategy (58% vs 36%; P = .047). Both strategies were associated with higher percentages of patients using calcium and vitamin D, but only the BHP+FP arm was statistically significant (P = .039). No men were detected to be at high fracture risk. All but one feasibility endpoint was met. CONCLUSIONS: Educational strategies to improve bone health care appear feasible and are associated with improved BMD ordering in men receiving ADT. Cancer 2018;124:1132-40. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Perceptions of Study Newsletters for Older Cancer Patients in Longitudinal Studies.

To date, no study has examined the value of providing study newsletters in educating and motivating participants taking part in longitudinal intervention studies and reducing attrition in studies. The study team examined perceptions and satisfaction towards study newsletters, and their potential benefits, in a population of older men with prostate cancer participating in two ongoing longitudinal trials. Two study newsletters issues were mailed out 4 months apart to prostate cancer patients participating in a bone health and/or exercise intervention trial. Participants (n = 133) were invited to complete an 18-item custom-designed survey examining perceptions towards and satisfaction with the newsletter, and provide feedback about what makes an ideal study newsletter. Analyses were primarily descriptive. Resources required to produce a study newsletter were also calculated. Of 133 participants, 83 usable surveys were returned (response rate 62.4%). The mean satisfaction rating for the newsletter was 8.5/10 (SD 1.9) (10 = highly satisfied). Seventy eight percent said the newsletter encouraged them to continue to participate in the study, and 93% indicated that providing such study newsletters should be optional (64%) or mandatory (29%). Each newsletter required 31 h of study personnel time (mostly research student) to produce. Study participants were very satisfied with the newsletter and the majority indicated that study newsletters should be a regular practice in all long-term studies and may improve participant retention. Producing a newsletter is a low-cost method of educating participants in longitudinal studies. Its impact on recruitment and retention should be examined in clinical trials.

A phase II RCT and economic analysis of three exercise delivery methods in men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy is commonly used to treat prostate cancer, the most common visceral cancer in men. However, various side effects often worsen physical functioning and reduce well-being among men on this treatment. Based on existing evidence, both resistance and aerobic training provide benefits for this population yet adherence rates are often low. The method of exercise delivery (supervised in-center or home-based) may be important, yet few studies have compared different models. Additionally, long-term exercise adherence is critical to achieve sustained benefits but long-term adherence data and predictors of adherence are lacking. The primary aim of this phase II, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial is to determine whether three exercise training delivery models are equivalent in terms of benefits in quality of life and physical fitness in this population. Secondary aims include examination of long-term adherence and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer, starting or continuing on androgen deprivation therapy for at least 6 months, fluent in English, and living close to one of two experienced Canadian study centers are eligible. Participants complete five assessments over one year, including a fitness assessment and self-report questionnaires. Socio-demographic and clinical data collection occur at baseline, bone mineral density testing at two time points, and blood work is performed at three time points. Participants are randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to supervised personal training, supervised group training, or home-based smartphone- and health coach-supported training. Each participant receives a detailed exercise manual, including illustrations of exercises and safety precautions. Participants are asked to complete 4 to 5 exercise sessions per week, incorporating aerobic, resistance and flexibility training. Participant intensity levels will be monitored. The intervention duration is 6 months, with 6 months additional follow-up. Outcomes include: body composition, fitness testing, quality of life and fatigue, biological outcomes, and program adherence. Cost information will be obtained using patient diary-based self-report. DISCUSSION: The goals of this study are to gain a better understanding of health benefits and costs associated with commonly used yet currently not compared exercise delivery models as well as an increased understanding of adherence to exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Registration # NCT02046837), registered January 20(th), 2014.