Outcomes for breast cancer survivors with metastatic disease in a physical activity program for medically underserved cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This study examined the effectiveness and feasibility of the Active Living After Cancer (ALAC) program for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) survivors. METHODS: ALAC is a 12-session community-based program to help cancer survivors improve their physical functioning and quality of life through increased physical activity. ALAC participants with MBC (stage IV) were compared to survivors with early-stage breast cancer (stages I and II). The International Physical Activity Questionnaire, Godin Leisure-Time Physical Activity, 30-second sit-to-stand test, and PROMIS Global Health were administered at baseline and follow-up. Program satisfaction and retention were assessed at week 12. Repeated-measures mixed models were used to compare changes in outcomes between survivors with early-stage breast cancer and MBC. RESULTS: A total of 585 women (59.3 y ± 10.6), most of whom were Hispanic (54%) or non-Hispanic Black (22%), were included (early stage, n = 538; MBC, n = 47). After the ALAC program, a significant increase in physical activity (P < 0.001), improved physical and mental health T-scores (P < 0.001), and more sit-to-stand repetitions (P < 0.001) were observed for both survivors with early-stage breast cancer and MBC. Women with MBC showed significantly lower physical health (P = 0.037) and physical function (P = 0.010) compared to early-stage at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The ALAC program increased physical activity and improved health-related quality of life and physical function among breast cancer survivors with both early-stage and metastatic disease. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study emphasizes the importance of incorporating physical activity interventions like the ALAC program into the comprehensive care of cancer survivors, including those with metastatic disease.

Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Should We Use COMM (Current Opioid Misuse Measure) to Screen for Opioid Abuse in Patients With Cancer Pain?

BACKGROUND: Growing concerns about opioid use disorder (OUD) and the resulting decrease in opioid availability for patients with cancer pain highlight the need for reliable screening tools to identify the subset of patients at increased risk for aberrant opioid use. Our study examines the utility of Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) recommended by the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Adult Cancer Pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes of 444 consecutive patients with cancer seen in pain clinics of a cancer center at 2 time points within 100 days. The relationship of COMM to other OUD screening tools, pain, opioid doses, patient demographics, and mortality was examined using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. We also examined individual items of COMM for face validity. RESULTS: Among 444 patients who completed pain surveys at 2 time points, 157 (35.4%) did not complete COMM surveys. Using a COMM cutoff of ≥13, a total of 84 patients (29.3%; 84/287) scored positive for aberrant drug use. As patients remained on opioids for 49 to 100 days, the likelihood of improving COMM score (turning from positive to negative) was 6.1 times greater than the reverse. The number of patients with COMM ≥13 was 3.8 times higher than the number of patients with CPT diagnostic codes for OUD, 5.3 times higher than those with a positive urine drug screening, and 21 times higher than those with a positive CAGE (Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-Opener Questionnaire) score. COMM ≥13 was not associated with pain relief response (worst pain intensity score ≥2 points on the Brief Pain Inventory), opioid doses, gender, or age. Contrary to the intended use of COMM to identify aberrant opioid use, COMM ≥13 predicted mortality: patients with COMM ≥13 were 1.9 times more likely to die within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that using COMM in a cancer population may significantly overestimate the risk of opioid misuse. Using COMM without modifications can create an additional barrier to cancer pain management, such as limiting appropriate opioid use.

Identification of health-related quality of life profiles among long-term survivors of primary central nervous system tumors.

PURPOSE: We aimed to identify health-related quality of life (HRQOL) latent classes among primary central nervous system tumor (PCNST) long-term survivors (LTS) and to evaluate differences between classes in survivor sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and symptoms to guide  the development of survivorship care programs tailored to unique class needs. METHODS: Data from 298 PCNST LTS reporting HRQOL on the EQ-5D-3L were analyzed using latent profile analysis. Correlations and independent group t-tests were performed to identify differences between identified HRQOL classes by sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and symptoms. RESULTS: Sample mean age was 48 years, 54% were male, 82% Caucasian, 56% employed, 60% had a high-grade glioma, and 52% had a KPS ≥ 90. Two HRQOL classes, good (61%) and poor (39%), were identified. The good HRQOL class reported no problems with self-care and few problems with mobility or usual activities. Thirty-eight percent reported anxiety and depression and 21% pain. Over 94% of the poor HRQOL class had at least moderate problems with mobility and usual activities, and over 50% had pain, self-care issues, anxiety, and depression. Older age (φ = 0.21), unemployment (φ = 0.30), spine tumors (φ = 0.18), active treatment (φ = 0.20), tumor recurrence (φ = 0.28), and poorer KPS scores (φ = 0.61) were associated with membership in the poor HRQOL class. CONCLUSIONS: In the poor PCNST LTS HRQOL class, an overwhelming majority faced significant physical challenges, and the good HRQOL class experienced mood-related disturbance but limited physical challenges. These HRQOL profiles can be used to guide survivorship programs and tailored interventions.

Trans-pacific multicenter collaborative study of minimally invasive proximal versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers.

BACKGROUND: The current standard operation for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers with limited esophageal extension is total gastrectomy (TG). TG is associated with impaired appetite and weight loss due to the loss of gastric functions such as production of ghrelin and with anemia due to intrinsic factor loss and vitamin B12 malabsorption. Theoretically, proximal gastrectomy (PG) can mitigate these problems by preserving gastric function. However, PG with direct esophagogastric reconstruction is associated with severe postoperative reflux, delayed gastric emptying, and poor quality of life (QoL). Minimally invasive PG (MIPG) with antireflux techniques has been increasingly performed by experts but is technically demanding owing to its complexity. Moreover, the actual advantages of MIPG over minimally invasive TG (MITG) with regards to postoperative QoL are unknown. Our overall objective of this study is to determine the short-term QoL benefits of MIPG. Our central hypotheses are that MIPG is safe and that patients have improved appetite after MIPG with effective antireflux techniques, which leads to an overall QoL improvement when compared with MITG. METHODS: Enrollment of a total of 60 patients in this prospective survey-collection study is expected. Procedures (MITG versus MIPG, antireflux techniques for MIPG [double-tract reconstruction versus the double-flap technique]) will be chosen based on surgeon and/or patient preference. Randomization is not considered feasible because patients often have strong preferences regarding MITG and MIPG. The primary outcome is appetite level (reported on a 0-10 scale) at 3 months after surgery. With an expected 30 patients per cohort (MITG versus MIPG), this study will have 80% power to detect a one-point difference in appetite level. Patient-reported outcomes will be longitudinally collected (including questions about appetite and reflux), and specific QoL items, body weight, body mass index and ghrelin, albumin, and hemoglobin levels will be compared. DISCUSSION: Surgeons from the US, Japan, and South Korea formed this collaboration with the agreement that the surgical approach to P/GEJ cancers is an internationally important but controversial topic that requires immediate action. At the completion of the proposed research, our expected outcome is the establishment of the benefit and safety of MIPG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with Clinical Trials Reporting Program Registration under the registration number NCI-2022-00267 on January 11, 2022, as well as with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05205343 on January 11, 2022.

Pilot study of a Spanish language measure of financial toxicity in underserved Hispanic cancer patients with low English proficiency.

Background: Financial toxicity (FT) reflects multi-dimensional personal economic hardships borne by cancer patients. It is unknown whether measures of FT-to date derived largely from English-speakers-adequately capture economic experiences and financial hardships of medically underserved low English proficiency US Hispanic cancer patients. We piloted a Spanish language FT instrument in this population. Methods: We piloted a Spanish version of the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) FT measure using qualitative cognitive interviews and surveys in un-/under-insured or medically underserved, low English proficiency, Spanish-speaking Hispanics (UN-Spanish, n = 23) receiving ambulatory oncology care at a public healthcare safety net hospital in the Houston metropolitan area. Exploratory analyses compared ENRICh FT scores amongst the UN-Spanish group to: (1) un-/under-insured English-speaking Hispanics (UN-English, n = 23) from the same public facility and (2) insured English-speaking Hispanics (INS-English, n = 31) from an academic comprehensive cancer center. Multivariable logistic models compared the outcome of severe FT (score > 6). Results: UN-Spanish Hispanic participants reported high acceptability of the instrument (only 0% responded that the instrument was "very difficult to answer" and 4% that it was "very difficult to understand the questions"; 8% responded that it was "very difficult to remember resources used" and 8% that it was "very difficult to remember the burdens experienced"; and 4% responded that it was "very uncomfortable to respond"). Internal consistency of the FT measure was high (Cronbach's α = 0.906). In qualitative responses, UN-Spanish Hispanics frequently identified a total lack of credit, savings, or income and food insecurity as aspects contributing to FT. UN-Spanish and UN-English Hispanic patients were younger, had lower education and income, resided in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and had more advanced cancer vs. INS-English Hispanics. There was a higher likelihood of severe FT in UN-Spanish (OR = 2.73, 95% CI 0.77-9.70; p = 0.12) and UN-English (OR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.13-15.12; p = 0.03) vs. INS-English Hispanics. A higher likelihood of severely depleted FT coping resources occurred in UN-Spanish (OR = 4.00, 95% CI 1.07-14.92; p = 0.04) and UN-English (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 1.49-22.1; p = 0.01) vs. INS-English. The likelihood of FT did not differ between UN-Spanish and UN-English in both models (p = 0.59 and p = 0.62 respectively). Conclusion: In medically underserved, uninsured Hispanic patients with cancer, comprehensive Spanish-language FT assessment in low English proficiency participants was feasible, acceptable, and internally consistent. Future studies employing tailored FT assessment and intervention should encompass the key privations and hardships in this population.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Pneumonitis Associated With Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pneumonitis causes substantial morbidity and mortality. Estimates of real-world incidence and reported risk factors vary substantially. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 419 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were treated with anti-PD-(L)1 with or without anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Clinical, imaging, and microbiological data were evaluated by multidisciplinary adjudication teams. The primary outcome of interest was grade ≥2 (CTCAEv5) pneumonitis. Clinicopathologic variables, tobacco use, cancer therapies, and preexisting lung disease were assessed for univariate effects using Cox proportional hazards models. We created multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to assess risk factors for pneumonitis and mortality. Pneumonitis, pneumonia, and progression were modeled as time-dependent variables in mortality models. RESULTS: We evaluated 419 patients between 2013 and 2021. The cumulative incidence of pneumonitis was 9.5% (40/419). In a multivariate model, pneumonitis increased the risk for mortality (HR 1.6, 95% CI, 1.0-2.5), after adjustment for disease progression (HR 1.6, 95% CI, 1.4-1.8) and baseline shortness of breath (HR 1.5, 95% CI, 1.2-2.0). Incomplete resolution was more common with more severe pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease was associated with higher risk for pneumonitis (HR 5.4, 95% CI, 1.1-26.6), particularly in never smokers (HR 26.9, 95% CI, 2.8-259.0). CONCLUSION: Pneumonitis occurred at a high rate and significantly increased mortality. Interstitial lung disease, particularly in never smokers, increased the risk for pneumonitis.

Measuring symptom burden in patients with cancer during a pandemic: the MD Anderson symptom inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID).

BACKGROUND: Symptom expression in SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) may affect patients already symptomatic with cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can describe symptom burden during the acute and postacute stages of COVID-19 and support risk stratification for levels of care. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our purpose was to rapidly develop, launch through an electronic patient portal, and provide initial validation for a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a CDC/WHO web-based scan for COVID-19 symptoms and a relevance review of symptoms by an expert panel of clinicians treating cancer patients with COVID-19 to create a provisional MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID). English-speaking adults with cancer who tested positive for COVID-19 participated in the psychometric testing phase. Patients completed longitudinal assessments of the MDASI-COVID and the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) utility index and visual analog scale, which were presented through an electronic health record patient portal. To test the validity of the MDASI-COVID to distinguish between known groups of patients, we hypothesized that patients hospitalized, including having a hospitalization extended, for COVID-19 versus those not hospitalized would experience higher symptom burden. Correlation of mean symptom severity and interference scores with relevant EQ-5D-5L scores tested concurrent validity. The reliability of the MDASI-COVID was evaluated by calculating Cronbach alpha coefficients and test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients between the initial assessment and a second assessment no more than 14 days later. RESULTS: The web-based scan found 31 COVID-19-related symptoms; rankings of a 14-clinician expert panel reduced this list to 11 COVID-specific items to be added to the core MDASI. Time from literature scan start in March 2020 to instrument launch in May 2020 was 2 months. Psychometric analysis established the MDASI-COVID's reliability, known-group validity, and concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to rapidly develop and electronically launch a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer. Additional research is needed to confirm the content domain and predictive validity of the MDASI-COVID and define the symptom burden trajectory of COVID-19.

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a virtual reality intervention targeting distress and anxiety in primary brain tumor patients at the time of clinical evaluation: Study protocol for a phase 2 clinical trial.

Background: Primary brain tumor (PBT) patients experience higher levels of distress and anxiety than other solid tumor patients, particularly at the time of clinical evaluation when uncertainty about disease status is high ("scanxiety"). There is promising evidence supporting use of virtual reality (VR) to target psychological symptoms in other solid tumor patients, though PBT patients have not been studied extensively in this context. The primary aim of this phase 2 clinical trial is to establish the feasibility of a remote VR-based relaxation intervention for a PBT population, with secondary aims designed to determine preliminary efficacy of improving distress and anxiety symptoms. Methods: PBT patients (N=120) with upcoming MRI scans and clinical appointments who meet eligibility will be recruited to participate in a single arm trial conducted remotely through the NIH. Following completion of baseline assessments, participants will complete a 5-minute VR intervention via telehealth using a head-mounted immersive device while under supervision of the research team. Following the intervention, over the course of 1 month patients can use VR at their discretion with follow-up assessments done immediately post-VR intervention, as well as 1 week and 4 weeks later. Additionally, a qualitative phone interview will be conducted to assess patient satisfaction with the intervention. Discussion: Use of immersive VR is an innovative interventional approach to target distress and scanxiety symptoms in PBT patients who are at high risk for experiencing these symptoms leading into their clinical appointments. Findings from this study may inform design of a future multicenter randomized VR trial for PBT patients and may aid in development of similar interventions for other oncology populations. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04301089), registered 9 March 2020.

Assessing gaps in motherhood after cancer: development and psychometric testing of the Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale.

OBJECTIVE: With a growing population of young cancer survivors, there is an increasing need to address the gaps in evidence regarding cancer survivors' obstetric outcomes, fertility care access, and experiences. As part of a large research program, this study engaged survivors and experts in co-developing and testing the validity, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility of a scale to assess survivor-reported barriers to motherhood after cancer. METHODS: Scale items were developed based on literature and expert review of 226 reproductive health items, and six experience and focus groups with 26 survivors of breast and gynecological cancers. We then invited 128 survivors to complete the scale twice, 48 hours apart, and assessed the scale's psychometric properties using exploratory factor analyses including reliability, known-group validity, and convergent validity. RESULTS: Item development identified three primary themes: multifaceted barriers for cancer survivors; challenging decisions about whether and how to pursue motherhood; and a timely need for evidence about obstetric outcomes. Retained items were developed into a 24-item prototype scale with four subscales. Prototype testing showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.71) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70). Known-group validity was supported; the scale discriminated between groups by age (x=70.0 for patients ≥35 years old vs 54.5 for patients <35 years old, p=0.02) and years since diagnosis (x=71.5 for ≥6 years vs 54.3 for<6 years, p=0.01). The financial subscale was correlated with the Economic StraiN and Resilience in Cancer measure of financial toxicity (ρ=0.39, p<0.001). The scale was acceptable and feasibly delivered online. The final 22-item scale is organized in four subscales: personal, medical, relational, and financial barriers to motherhood. CONCLUSION: The Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale demonstrated validity, reliability, and was acceptable and feasible when delivered online. Implementing the scale can gather the data needed to inform shared decision making and to address disparities in fertility care for survivors.

Feasibility of a virtual reality intervention targeting distress and anxiety symptoms in patients with primary brain tumors: Interim analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients experience distress and anxiety when undergoing imaging studies to monitor disease status, yet these symptoms are not always appropriately identified or well-managed. This interim analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial explored feasibility and acceptability of a virtual reality relaxation (VR) intervention for primary brain tumor (PBT) patients at the time of clinical evaluation. METHODS: English speaking, adult PBT patients with previous reports of distress and upcoming neuroimaging were recruited between March of 2021 and March 2022. A brief VR session was done within 2 weeks prior to neuroimaging with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected before and immediately post-intervention. Self-directed VR use over the next 1 month was encouraged with additional PROs assessments at 1 and 4 weeks. Feasibility metrics included enrollment, eligibility, attrition, and device-related adverse effects with satisfaction measured with qualitative phone interviews. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were approached via email, 40 (73%) responded and 20 (50%) enrolled (9 declines, 11 screen fails). 65% of participants were ≤ 50 years, 50% were male, 90% were White/non-Hispanic, 85% had good KPS (≥ 90), and most were on active treatment. All patients completed the VR intervention, PROs questionnaires, weekly check-ins, and qualitative interview. Most (90%) reported frequent VR use and high satisfaction and only 7 mild AEs were recorded (headache, dizziness, nausea, neck pain). CONCLUSION: This interim analysis supports feasibility and acceptability of a novel VR intervention to target psychological symptoms for PBT patients. Trial enrollment will continue to assess for intervention efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04301089 registered on 3/9/2020.

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a virtual reality intervention targeting distress and anxiety in primary brain tumor patients at the time of clinical evaluation: Study protocol for a phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary brain tumor (PBT) patients experience higher levels of distress and anxiety than other solid tumor patients, particularly at the time of clinical evaluation when uncertainty about disease status is high ("scanxiety"). There is promising evidence supporting use of virtual reality (VR) to target psychological symptoms in other solid tumor patients, though PBT patients have not been studied extensively in this context. The primary aim of this phase 2 clinical trial is to establish the feasibility of a remote VR-based relaxation intervention for a PBT population, with secondary aims designed to determine preliminary efficacy of improving distress and anxiety symptoms. METHODS: PBT patients (N = 120) with upcoming MRI scans and clinical appointments who meet eligibility will be recruited to participate in a single arm trial conducted remotely through the NIH. Following completion of baseline assessments, participants will complete a 5-min VR intervention via telehealth using a head-mounted immersive device while under supervision of the research team. Following the intervention, over the course of 1 month patients can use VR at their discretion with follow-up assessments done immediately post-VR intervention, as well as 1 week and 4 weeks later. Additionally, a qualitative phone interview will be conducted to assess patient satisfaction with the intervention. DISCUSSION: Use of immersive VR is an innovative interventional approach to target distress and scanxiety symptoms in PBT patients who are at high risk for experiencing these symptoms leading into their clinical appointments. Findings from this study may inform design of a future multicenter randomized VR trial for PBT patients and may aid in development of similar interventions for other oncology populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04301089), registered 9 March 2020.

Symptom Burden in Patients with Malignant Bowel Obstruction Treated With or Without Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal obstruction is the most common indication for palliative surgical consultation. We sought to assess patient-reported outcomes and survival after surgical and nonsurgical treatment of malignant bowel obstruction. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study enrolling patients with advanced malignancy who underwent surgical consultation at a tertiary cancer center. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using a previously validated inventory, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Gastrointestinal Obstruction (MDASI-GIO), administered at enrollment and 7 other time points for up to 90 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 125 patients, of whom 37 underwent surgery and 88 did not. Patients treated nonsurgically were more likely to have carcinomatosis on imaging (71% vs 49%, p = 0.02). Pain medicine, palliative care, and chaplaincy consultations occurred in 17%, 30%, and 15% of patients within the first month of enrollment. Higher mean symptom scores were noted by surgical patients, although the only single scores with effect sizes 0.5 or greater were symptom interference with general activity and work. The composite score for interference in work, activity, and walking had the largest effect size at -0.37, indicating greater interference in patients undergoing surgery. Patients selected for surgery had extended overall survival (median 15 vs 3 months, p < 0.01). Carcinomatosis, palliative care evaluation, and venting gastrostomy tube were associated with increased risk of death, and ability to receive subsequent chemotherapy and surgical management were positive prognostic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: In this first study evaluating patient-reported outcomes after treatment for malignant bowel obstruction, we found that selection for surgical treatment was associated with improved survival, but also more symptom interference in general activities and work. These results may be useful in palliative surgical decision-making and informing patients during consultation for malignant bowel obstruction.

Discovery of clinical and demographic determinants of symptom burden in primary brain tumor patients using network analysis and unsupervised clustering.

Background: Precision health approaches to managing symptom burden in primary brain tumor (PBT) patients are imperative to improving patient outcomes and quality of life, but require tackling the complexity and heterogeneity of the symptom experience. Network Analysis (NA) can identify complex symptom co-severity patterns, and unsupervised clustering can unbiasedly stratify patients into clinically relevant subgroups based on symptom patterns. We combined these approaches in a novel study seeking to understand PBT patients' clinical and demographic determinants of symptom burden. Methods: MDASI-BT symptom severity data from a two-institutional cohort of 1128 PBT patients were analyzed. Gaussian Graphical Model networks were constructed for the all-patient cohort and subgroups identified by unsupervised clustering based on co-severity patterns. Network characteristics were analyzed and compared using permutation-based statistical tests. Results: NA of the all-patient cohort revealed 4 core dimensions that drive the overall symptom burden of PBT patients: Cognitive, physical, focal neurologic, and affective. Fatigue/drowsiness was identified as pivotal to the symptom experience based on the network characteristics. Unsupervised clustering discovered 4 patient subgroups: PC1 (n = 683), PC2 (n = 244), PC3 (n = 92), and PC4 (n = 109). Moderately accurate networks could be constructed for PC1 and PC2. The PC1 patients had the highest interference scores among the subgroups and their network resembled the all-patient network. The PC2 patients were older and their symptom burden was driven by cognitive symptoms. Conclusions: In the future, the proposed framework might be able to prioritize symptoms for targeting individual patients, informing more personalized symptom management.

Feasibility of a virtual reality intervention targeting distress and anxiety symptoms in patients with primary brain tumors: Interim analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial.

Purpose: Cancer patients experience distress and anxiety when undergoing imaging studies to monitor disease status, yet these symptoms are not always appropriately identified or well-managed. This interim analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial explored feasibility and acceptability of a virtual reality relaxation (VR) intervention for primary brain tumor (PBT) patients at the time of clinical evaluation. Methods: English speaking, adult PBT patients with previous reports of distress and upcoming neuroimaging were recruited between March of 2021 and March 2022. A brief VR session was done within 2 weeks prior to neuroimaging with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected before and immediately post-intervention. Self-directed VR use over the next 1 month was encouraged with additional PROs assessments at 1 and 4 weeks. Feasibility metrics included enrollment, eligibility, attrition, and device-related adverse effects with satisfaction measured with qualitative phone interviews. Results: 55 patients were approached via email, 40 (73%) responded and 20 (50%) enrolled (9 declines, 11 screen fails). 65% of participants were ≤ 50 years, 50% were male, 90% were White/non-Hispanic, 85% had good KPS (≥ 90), and most were on active treatment. All patients completed the VR intervention, PROs questionnaires, weekly check-ins, and qualitative interview. Most (90%) reported frequent VR use and high satisfaction and only 7 mild AEs were recorded (headache, dizziness, nausea, neck pain). Conclusion: This interim analysis confirmed feasibility and acceptability of a novel VR intervention to target psychological symptoms for PBT patients. Trial enrollment will continue to assess for intervention efficacy. Trial Registration: NCT04301089 registered on 3/9/2020.

Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptom burden after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

This cross-sectional study aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessment tool to assess symptom burden and daily functioning in patients after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-CAR). The items were generated based on literature review, content elicitation interviews with patients, and clinician's review. The patients completed the MDASI core and module, single-item quality-of-life (QoL) measure and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29). The psychometric validation analysis was based on the acceptability after item reduction process. The final 10 MDASI-CAR module items included tremors, fever/chills, headache, balance, dizziness, attention, difficulty speaking, coughing, sexual dysfunction, and diarrhoea with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: MDASI Core, 0.865; MDASI Interference, 0.915; CAR-T module, 0.746). The MDASI-CAR has excellent known-group validity that was demonstrated by differentiate patients based on patient's performance status (Cohen's d for MDASI core = -1.008, interference = -0.771, module = -0.835). Criterion validity was demonstrated by the significant correlations between the MDASI-CAR composite score, the single QoL item and the relevant domains on PROMIS-29 (all p < 0.05). This study established the MDASI-CAR module as a reliable and valid PRO tool for monitoring symptom burden after CAR T-cell therapy in patients with haematological malignancies. The findings need to be validated with a longitudinal design.

Phase I Study and Cell-Free DNA Analysis of T-DM1 and Metronomic Temozolomide for Secondary Prevention of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Brain Metastases.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data showed that prophylactic, low-dose temozolomide (TMZ) significantly prevented breast cancer brain metastasis. We present results of a phase I trial combining T-DM1 with TMZ for the prevention of additional brain metastases after previous occurrence and local treatment in patients with HER2+ breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had HER2+ breast cancer with brain metastases and were within 12 weeks of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery, and/or surgery. Standard doses of T-DM1 were administered intravenously every 21 days (3.6 mg/kg) and TMZ was given orally daily in a 3+3 phase I dose escalation design at 30, 40, or 50 mg/m2, continuously. DLT period was one 21-day cycle. Primary endpoint was safety and recommended phase II dose. Symptom questionnaires, brain MRI, and systemic CT scans were performed every 6 weeks. Cell-free DNA sequencing was performed on patients' plasma and CSF. RESULTS: Twelve women enrolled, nine (75%) with prior SRS therapy and three (25%) with prior WBRT. Grade 3 or 4 AEs included thrombocytopenia (1/12), neutropenia (1/12), lymphopenia (6/12), and decreased CD4 (6/12), requiring pentamidine for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis. No DLT was observed. Four patients on the highest TMZ dose underwent dose reductions. At trial entry, 6 of 12 patients had tumor mutations in CSF, indicating ongoing metastatic colonization despite a clear MRI. Median follow-up on study was 9.6 m (2.8-33.9); only 2 patients developed new parenchymal brain metastases. Tumor mutations varied with patient outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Metronomic TMZ in combination with standard dose T-DM1 shows low-grade toxicity and potential activity in secondary prevention of HER2+ brain metastases.

A multicenter study of clinical impact of variant of uncertain significance reclassification in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer susceptibility genes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical interpretation of genetic test results is complicated by variants of uncertain significance (VUS) that have an unknown impact on health but can be clarified through reclassification. There is little empirical evidence regarding VUS reclassification in oncology care settings, including the prevalence and outcomes of reclassification, and racial/ethnic differences. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of persons with and without a personal history of cancer carrying VUS (with or without an accompanying pathogenic or likely pathogenic [P/LP] variant) in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer predisposition genes seen at four cancer care settings (in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New Jersey) between 2013 and 2019. RESULTS: In 2715 individuals included in the study, 3261 VUS and 313 P/LP variants were reported; 8.1% of all individuals with VUS experienced reclassifications and rates varied significantly among cancer care settings from 4.81% to 20.19% (overall p < 0.001). Compared to their prevalence in the overall sample, reclassification rates for Black individuals were higher (13.6% vs. 19.0%), whereas the rates for Asian individuals were lower (6.3% vs. 3.5%) and rates for White and Hispanic individuals were proportional. Two-year prevalence of VUS reclassification remained steady between 2014 and 2019. Overall, 11.3% of all reclassified VUS resulted in clinically actionable findings and 4.6% subsequently changed individuals' clinical managements. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this large multisite study suggest that VUS reclassification alters clinical management, has implications for precision cancer prevention, and highlights the need for implementing practices and solutions for efficiently returning reinterpreted genetic test results.

Relationship between RANO-PRO Working Group standardised priority constructs and disease progression among malignant glioma patients: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Recognising the importance of clinical outcomes assessments (COAs), the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Patient Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) Working Group recommended inclusion of core symptoms and functions in clinical care or research for malignant glioma patients. This study evaluated the association of the recommended symptoms (pain, perceived cognition, seizures, aphasia, symptomatic adverse events) and functions (weakness, walking, work, usual activities) with disease progression in these patients. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with malignant glioma were included from the US National Cancer Institute Neuro-Oncology Branch Natural History Study (NOB-NHS) which follows primary central nervous system tumour patients aged 18 years and older throughout their disease trajectory. The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT), EQ-5D-3L, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and Neurologic Function scores (NFS) were evaluated in relation to disease progression by chi-square tests, independent- and paired-samples t-tests, adjusted for multiple comparisons at first assessment and over time to a second assessment. Radiographic disease progression was determined on the interpretation of the imaging study by a radiologist and neuro-oncologist using standard criteria as part of clinical trial participation or routine standard of care. The priority constructs were evaluated to provide initial evidence of their relevance, relationship to disease status over time, and sensitivity to change in a diverse group of patients with malignant glioma. Findings: Seven hundred and sixty-five patients had enrolled into the NOB-NHS between September 1, 2016 and January 31, 2020. Three hundred and thirty-six patients had a diagnosis of a malignant glioma (anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligodendroglioma, glioblastoma, and gliosarcoma) and were included in the current study. The sample was 64% male (n = 215), 36% female (n = 121), median age of 52 years (IQR = 18.75), 82% White (n = 276), and 65% had tumour recurrence (n = 219). One hundred and fifty-four (46%) had radiographic disease progression. Difficulty remembering, fatigue, and weakness were worse in the group whose imaging was interpreted as radiographic disease progression versus stable disease, as well as the functions of walking, work, activity, and self-care (1.1 < difference < 1.8). Patients with disease progression were four times more likely to have a poor KPS (≤80) and worse NFS. Among patients with disease progression at a second assessment (n = 112), all symptoms, except seizures, worsened between first assessment and disease progression and up to 22% of patients (n = 25) reported worsening mobility, self-care, and usual activity; 46% (n = 51) and 35% (n = 30) had worsened KPS and NFS, respectively. On average, 4 symptoms or functions (SD = 3) were reported as moderate-to-severe and 30% (n = 33) and 23% (n = 26) had a change to moderate-to-severe fatigue and walking, respectively, at time of disease progression. Over 7% of patients with worsening (n = 7 of 100) reported every symptom and function as having changed the most severely including seizures with fatigue and activity reported as the top symptom and function, respectively. Interpretation: The identified core symptoms and functions worsened at the time of progression, supporting the relevance and sensitivity of the priority constructs identified by the RANO-PRO Working Group for clinical care and clinical trials for malignant glioma patients. Funding: The Natural History Study is supported by Intramural Project 1ZIABC011786-03.

Impact of an Interdisciplinary Goals-of-Care Program Among Medical Inpatients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Propensity Score Analysis.

PURPOSE: Many hospitals have established goals-of-care programs in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic; however, few have reported their outcomes. We examined the impact of a multicomponent interdisciplinary goals-of-care program on intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and hospital outcomes for medical inpatients with cancer. METHODS: This single-center study with a quasi-experimental design included consecutive adult patients with cancer admitted to medical units at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, during the 8-month preimplementation (May 1, 2019-December 31, 2019) and postimplementation period (May 1, 2020-December 31, 2020). The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital mortality, and proportion/timing of care plan documentation. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for differences in potential covariates, including age, sex, cancer diagnosis, race/ethnicity, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. RESULTS: This study involved 12,941 hospitalized patients with cancer (pre n = 6,977; post n = 5,964) including 1,365 ICU admissions (pre n = 727; post n = 638). After multicomponent goals-of-care program initiation, we observed a significant reduction in ICU mortality (28.2% v 21.9%; change -6.3%, 95% CI, -9.6 to -3.1; P = .0001). We also observed significant decreases in length of ICU stay (mean change -1.4 days, 95% CI, -2.0 to -0.7; P < .0001) and in-hospital mortality (7% v 6.1%, mean change -0.9%, 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.3; P = .004). The proportion of hospitalized patients with an in-hospital do-not-resuscitate order increased significantly from 14.7% to 19.6% after implementation (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.5; P < .0001), and do-not-resuscitate order was established earlier (mean difference -3.0 days, 95% CI, -3.9 to -2.1; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: This study showed improvement in hospital outcomes and care plan documentation after implementation of a system-wide, multicomponent goals-of-care intervention.