A prospective study to validate the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced dermatologic toxicities FACT-EGFRI 18 questionnaire: SWOG S1013.

BACKGROUND: Papulopustular rash is a common class effect of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) that can affect patients' health-related quality of life and cause disruptions to treatment. SWOG S1013 (NCT01416688) is a multi-center study designed to validate the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy EGFRI 18 (FACT-EGFRI 18) using 7-items from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 to assess EGFRI-induced skin-related toxicities and their impact on functional status. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of colorectal or lung cancer to receive EGFRI therapies for at least 6 weeks were enrolled. Patient self-assessments using the FACT-EGFRI 18 were completed prior to undergoing CTCAE assessment by trained clinicians at baseline, weekly × 6, and then monthly × 3. The psychometric properties of the FACT-EGFRI 14 (skin toxicity items only) and 18 (plus 2 nail and 2 hair items) were established based on criterion validity, known groups validity, internal consistency reliability, and responsiveness to change. RESULTS: Of the 146 registered patients, 124 were evaluable. High Cronbach's alpha (> 0.70) for both FACT-EGFRI 14 and FACT-EGFRI 18 scores across assessment times were observed. Although agreement (i.e. criterion validity) between individual and summary scales of the FACT-EGFRI 18 for assessing skin toxicity was good, agreement with the clinician-reported CTCAE was only fair. The minimal important difference was determined to be 3 points. The results also demonstrated responsiveness to symptom change. DISCUSSION: Based on the results of this multi-center validation study, the FACT-EGFRI 18 patient-reported outcome instrument provided data from the patient's perspective yielding unique information as well as complementing clinician-rated CTCAE grades, especially for the symptoms of pain, pruritus, and paronychia. CONCLUSIONS: Good to excellent psychometric properties for the FACT-EGFRI 18 were demonstrated, supporting further use of this patient-reported outcomes measure. Additional validation with a more diverse group of patients should be conducted.

Disparities in cancer survival and incidence by metropolitan versus rural residence in Utah.

Cancer disparities in rural and frontier communities are an important issue in Utah because much of Utah is sparsely populated. The aims of this study were to investigate whether there are differences in the cancer incidence and 5-year survival rates in Utah by metropolitan/rural residence and to investigate disparities in distributions of cancer risk factors. We used cancer registry records to identify patients diagnosed with a first primary cancer in Utah between 2004 and 2008. We estimated 5-year survival and incidence rates. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of death. There were 32,498 (86.9%) patients with cancer who lived in metropolitan counties and 4906 (13.1%) patients with cancer who lived in rural counties at the time of cancer diagnosis. Patients with cancer from rural counties were more likely to be older, American Indian/Alaskan Native, non-Hispanic, male, and diagnosed at higher stage. Rural residents had a five-year relative survival that was 5.2% lower than metropolitan residents and a 10% increase in risk of death (HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.18) after adjustment for multiple factors. Overall, the cancer incidence rates in rural counties were lower by 11.9 per 100,000 per year (449.2 in rural counties vs. 461.1 in metropolitan counties). Cancer patients living in rural counties of Utah had different demographic characteristics as well as differences in incidence and survival rates. Further studies with individual-level data are necessary to investigate the reasons behind these differences in cancer incidence and survival to reduce disparities.

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AI), which decrease circulating estradiol concentrations in post-menopausal women, are associated with toxicities that limit adherence. Approximately one-third of patients will tolerate a different AI after not tolerating the first. We report the effect of crossover from exemestane to letrozole or vice versa on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and whether the success of crossover is due to lack of estrogen suppression. METHODS: Post-menopausal women enrolled on a prospective trial initiating AI therapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to exemestane or letrozole. Those that discontinued for intolerance were offered protocol-directed crossover to the other AI after a washout period. Changes in PROs, including pain [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] and functional status [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], were compared after 3 months on the first versus the second AI. Estradiol and drug concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients participated in the crossover protocol, of whom 91.3% reported improvement in symptoms prior to starting the second AI. Functional status worsened less after 3 months with the second AI (HAQ mean change AI #1: 0.2 [SD 0.41] vs. AI #2: -0.05 [SD 0.36]; p = 0.001); change in pain scores was similar between the first and second AI (VAS mean change AI #1: 0.8 [SD 2.7] vs. AI #2: -0.2 [SD 2.8]; p = 0.19). No statistical differences in estradiol or drug concentrations were found between those that continued or discontinued AI after crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Although all AIs act via the same mechanism, a subset of patients intolerant to one AI report improved PROs with a different one. The mechanism of this tolerance remains unknown, but does not appear to be due to non-adherence to, or insufficient estrogen suppression by, the second AI.

Variation in the use of advanced imaging at the time of breast cancer diagnosis in a statewide registry.

BACKGROUND: Although national guidelines do not recommend extent of disease imaging for patients with newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer given that the harm outweighs the benefits, high rates of testing have been documented. The 2012 Choosing Wisely guidelines specifically addressed this issue. We examined the change over time in imaging use across a statewide collaborative, as well as the reasons for performing imaging and the impact on cost of care. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data and use of advanced imaging tests (positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and bone scan) were abstracted from the medical records of patients treated at 25 participating sites in the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative (MiBOQI). For patients diagnosed in 2014 and 2015, reasons for testing were abstracted from the medical record. RESULTS: Of the 34,078 patients diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer between 2008 and 2015 in MiBOQI, 6853 (20.1%) underwent testing with at least 1 imaging modality in the 90 days after diagnosis. There was considerable variability in rates of testing across the 25 sites for all stages of disease. Between 2008 and 2015, testing decreased over time for patients with stage 0-IIA disease (all P < .001) and remained stable for stage IIB disease (P = .10). This decrease in testing over time resulted in a cost savings, especially for patients with stage I disease. CONCLUSION: Use of advanced imaging at the time of diagnosis decreased over time in a large statewide collaborative. Additional interventions are warranted to further reduce rates of unnecessary imaging to improve quality of care for patients with breast cancer. Cancer 2017;123:2975-83. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Tumor marker usage and medical care costs among older early-stage breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Although American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines discourage the use of tumor marker assessment for routine surveillance in nonmetastatic breast cancer, their use in practice is uncertain. Our objective was to determine use of tumor marker tests such as carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 15-3/CA 27.29 and associated Medicare costs in early-stage breast cancer survivors. METHODS: By using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare records for patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer between 2001 and 2007, tumor marker usage within 2 years after diagnosis was identified by billing codes. Logistic regression models were used to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with use of tumor markers. To determine impact on costs of care, we used multivariable regression, controlling for other factors known to influence total medical costs. RESULTS: We identified 39,650 eligible patients. Of these, 16,653 (42%) received at least one tumor marker assessment, averaging 5.7 tests over 2 years, with rates of use per person increasing over time. Factors significantly associated with use included age at diagnosis, diagnosis year, stage at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and urban/rural status. Rates of advanced imaging, but not biopsies, were significantly higher in the assessment group. Medical costs for patients who received at least one test were approximately 29% greater than costs for those who did not, adjusting for other factors. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer tumor markers are frequently used among women with early-stage disease and are associated with an increase in both diagnostic procedures and total cost of care. A better understanding of factors driving the use of and the potential benefits and harms of surveillance-based tumor marker testing is needed.

Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group.

Uncontrolled proliferation is a hallmark of cancer. In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of the proportion of cells staining for the nuclear antigen Ki67 has become the most widely used method for comparing proliferation between tumor samples. Potential uses include prognosis, prediction of relative responsiveness or resistance to chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, estimation of residual risk in patients on standard therapy and as a dynamic biomarker of treatment efficacy in samples taken before, during, and after neoadjuvant therapy, particularly neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Increasingly, Ki67 is measured in these scenarios for clinical research, including as a primary efficacy endpoint for clinical trials, and sometimes for clinical management. At present, the enormous variation in analytical practice markedly limits the value of Ki67 in each of these contexts. On March 12, 2010, an international panel of investigators with substantial expertise in the assessment of Ki67 and in the development of biomarker guidelines was convened in London by the co-chairs of the Breast International Group and North American Breast Cancer Group Biomarker Working Party to consider evidence for potential applications. Comprehensive recommendations on preanalytical and analytical assessment, and interpretation and scoring of Ki67 were formulated based on current evidence. These recommendations are geared toward achieving a harmonized methodology, create greater between-laboratory and between-study comparability, and allow earlier valid applications of this marker in clinical practice.