Physicians' Hierarchy of Tumor Biomarkers for Optimizing Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Tumor biomarkers are regularly used to guide breast cancer treatment and clinical trial enrollment. However, there remains a lack of knowledge regarding physicians' perspectives towards biomarkers and their role in treatment optimization, where treatment intensity is reduced to minimize toxicity. METHODS: Thirty-nine academic and community oncologists participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews, providing perspectives on optimization approaches to chemotherapy treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 2 independent coders utilizing a constant comparative method in NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. A framework outlining physicians' conception of biomarkers, and their comfortability with their use in treatment optimization, was developed. RESULTS: In the hierarchal model of biomarkers, level 1 is comprised of standard-of-care (SoC) biomarkers, defined by a strong level of evidence, alignment with national guidelines, and widespread utilization. Level 2 includes SoC biomarkers used in alternative contexts, in which physicians expressed confidence, yet less certainty, due to a lack of data in certain subgroups. Level 3, or experimental, biomarkers created the most diverse concerns related to quality and quantity of evidence, with several additional modulators. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that physicians conceptualize the use of biomarkers for treatment optimization in successive levels. This hierarchy can be used to guide trialists in the development of novel biomarkers and design of future trials.

Consuming Patients' Days: Time Spent on Ambulatory Appointments by People With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In qualitative work, patients report that seemingly short trips to clinic (eg, a supposed 10-minute blood draw) often turn into "all-day affairs." We sought to quantify the time patients with cancer spend attending ambulatory appointments. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients scheduled for oncology-related ambulatory care (eg, labs, imaging, procedures, infusions, and clinician visits) at an academic cancer center over 1 week. The primary exposure was the ambulatory service type(s) (eg, clinician visit only, labs and infusion, etc.). We used Real-Time Location System badge data to calculate clinic times and estimated round-trip travel times and parking times. We calculated and summarized clinic and total (clinic + travel + parking) times for ambulatory service types. RESULTS: We included 435 patients. Across all service day type(s), the median (IQR) clinic time was 119 (78-202) minutes. The estimated median (IQR) round-trip driving distance and travel time was 34 (17-49) miles and 50 (36-68) minutes. The median (IQR) parking time was 14 (12-15) minutes. Overall, the median (IQR) total time was 197 (143-287) minutes. The median total times for specific service type(s) included: 99 minutes for lab-only, 144 minutes for clinician visit only, and 278 minutes for labs, clinician visit, and infusion. CONCLUSION: Patients often spent several hours pursuing ambulatory cancer care on a given day. Accounting for opportunity time costs and the coordination of activities around ambulatory care, these results highlight the substantial time burdens of cancer care, and support the notion that many days with ambulatory health care contact may represent "lost days."

A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC.

PURPOSE: Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans. RESULTS: Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03806738.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

OptimICE-RD: sacituzumab govitecan + pembrolizumab vs pembrolizumab (± capecitabine) for residual triple-negative breast cancer.

Patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy have a high risk of recurrence even with neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab. Sacituzumab govitecan, a Trop-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with pre-treated metastatic TNBC. Moreover, preclinical data suggest that topoisomerase I inhibitors may enhance the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors through activation of the cGAS-STING pathway. Here we describe the international randomized phase III AFT-65/ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD trial, which evaluates the efficacy and safety of sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice (pembrolizumab ± capecitabine) among patients with early-stage TNBC with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05633654 (ClinicalTrials.gov)Other Study ID Number(s): Gilead Study ID: GS-US-595-6184Registration date: 1 December 2022Study start date: 12 December 2022Recruitment status: Recruiting.

AFT-65/ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD is an ongoing clinical trial that is testing a new treatment combination for patients with stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Stage II­III means the cancer is confined to the breast and/or nearby lymph nodes and can be surgically removed. However, there remains a risk that the cancer could recur after surgery. To reduce this risk, patients with stage II­III TNBC receive anti-cancer medication before and after surgery. For some patients, receipt of anti-cancer medication before surgery produces a pathologic complete response (pCR), meaning there is no observable cancer left behind at surgery. Patients with a pCR have a lower risk of recurrence than patients with residual disease.The AFT-65/ASCENT-05/OptimICE-RD trial includes people with stage II-III TNBC who have residual cancer after completing their course of pre-surgery anti-cancer medication. All participants have any remaining cancer in their breast and/or lymph nodes removed surgically, after which they are randomly assigned to receive one of two treatments. The experimental therapy consists of pembrolizumab along with a medication called sacituzumab govitecan, which kills cancer cells directly and may strengthen the anti-cancer immune response. Pembrolizumab strengthens the anti-cancer immune response, so the hypothesis of this trial is that the two medications will be more effective together. The control therapy consists of pembrolizumab, alone or in combination with a chemotherapy medication called capecitabine, which is the current standard of care. To study the effectiveness of each treatment, the researchers are following up with all participants to learn if and when their breast cancer returns.

Assessing the association between quantity and quality of family caregiver participation in decision-making clinical encounters on patient activation in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

OBJECTIVE: Caregivers support individuals undergoing cancer treatment by assisting with activities, managing care, navigating healthcare systems, and communicating with care teams. We explored the quality and quantity of caregiver participation during recorded decision-making clinical appointments in women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This was a convergent parallel mixed methods study that utilized qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Caregiver participation quality was operationalized using a summative thematic content analysis to identify and sum caregiver actions performed during appointments. Performance of a greater number of actions was considered greater quality of participation. Caregiver participation quantity was measured by calculating the proportion of speaking time. Participation quality and quantity were compared to patient activation, assessed using the Patient Activation Measure 1-month post decision-making appointment. RESULTS: Fifty-three clinical encounters between patients with MBC, their caregivers, and oncologists were recorded. Identified caregiver actions included: General Support; Management of Treatment or Medication; Treatment History; Decision-Making; Insurance or Money; Pharmacy; Scheduling; Travel Concerns; General Cancer Understanding; Patient Specific Cancer Understanding; Caregiver-Initiated or Emphasis on Symptom Severity; and Caregiver Back-Up of Patient Symptom Description. Caregivers averaged 5 actions (SD 3): 48% of patient's caregivers had low quality (< 5 actions) and 52% had high quality (> 6 actions) participation. Regarding quantity, caregivers spoke on average for 4% of the encounter, with 60% of caregivers speaking less than 4% of the encounter (low quantity) and 40% of caregivers speaking more than 4% (high quantity). Greater quality and quantity of caregiver participation was associated with greater patient activation. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers perform a variety of actions during oncological decision-making visits aiding both patient and provider. Greater participation in terms of quantity and quality by the caregiver was associated with greater patient activism, indicating a need for better integration of the caregiver in clinical decision-making environments.

Effect of prior treatments on post-CDK 4/6 inhibitor survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Multiple treatment options exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, limited information is available on the impact of prior treatment duration and class on survival outcome for novel therapies, such as cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+ HER2-) MBC. METHODS: This study used a nationwide, de-identified electronic health record-derived database to identify women with HR+ HER2- MBC who received at least one CDK 4/6i between 2011 and 2020. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for the association between prior duration and class of cancer treatment (both early-stage and metastatic) and prior CDK 4/6i survival as well as for those with multiple CDK 4/6i. RESULTS: Of 5363 patients, the median survival from first CDK 4/6 inhibitor administration was 3.3 years. When compared to patients with no prior treatments, patients with < 1 year of prior treatment duration had a 30% increased hazard of death (HR, 1.30; 95% CI 1.15-1.46), those with 1 to < 3 years a 68% increased hazard of death (HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.49-1.88), and those with 3 or more years a 55% increased hazard of death (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.36, 1.76). Patients who received prior therapy (endocrine or chemotherapy) before their CDK 4/6i had worse outcomes than those who received no prior therapy. Similar results were seen when comparing patients in the metastatic setting alone. Finally, patients who received a different CDK 4/6i after their first saw a lower hazard of death compared to patients who received subsequent endocrine or chemotherapy after their first CDK 4/6i. CONCLUSION: Prior treatment duration and class are associated with a decreased overall survival after CDK 4/6 inhibitor administration. This highlights the importance for clinicians to consider prior treatment and duration in treatment decision-making and for trialists to stratify by these factors when randomizing patients or reporting results of future studies.

Cancer-Related Financial Hardship Screening as Part of Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: Data on financial hardship, an "adverse event" in individuals with cancer, are needed to inform policy and supportive care interventions and reduce adverse economic outcomes. METHODS: Lay navigator-led financial hardship screening was piloted among University of Alabama at Birmingham oncology patients initiating treatment in October 2020. Financial hardship screening, including reported financial distress and difficulty, was added to a standard-of-care treatment planning survey. Screening feasibility and completion and proportions of reported financial distress and difficulty were calculated overall and by patient race and rurality. The risk of financial distress by patient sociodemographics was estimated. RESULTS: Patients who completed a treatment planning survey (N=2741) were 18% Black, Indigenous, or persons of color (BIPOC) and 16% rural dwelling. The majority of patients completed financial hardship screening (90%), surpassing the target feasibility completion rate of 75%. The screening revealed 34% of patients were experiencing financial distress, including 49% of BIPOC and 30% of White patients. Adjusted models revealed BIPOC patients had a 48% higher risk of financial distress compared with those who were White (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI, 1.31-1.66). Large differences in reported financial difficulties were seen comparing patients who were BIPOC and White (utilities: 33% vs. 10%, upfront medical payments: 44% vs. 23%, transportation: 28% vs. 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The collection of patient-reported financial hardship data via routine clinical care was feasible and identified racial inequities at treatment initiation. Efforts to collect patient economic data should support the design, implementation, and evaluation of patient-centered interventions to improve equity and reduce the impact of financial hardship.

Family caregiver roles and challenges in assisting patients with cancer treatment decision-making: Analysis of data from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the roles and challenges of family caregivers involved in patients' cancer treatment decision-making. METHODS: Family caregiver-reported data were analyzed from a national survey conducted in the United States by CancerCare® (2/2021-7/2021). Four select-all-that-apply caregiver roles were explored: (1) observer (patient as primary decision-maker); (2) primary decision-maker; (3) shared decision-maker with patient and (4) decision delegated to healthcare team. Roles were compared across five treatment decisions: where to get treatment, the treatment plan, second opinions, beginning treatment and stopping treatment. Ten challenges faced by caregivers (e.g., information, cost, treatment understanding) were then examined. χ2 and regression analyses were used to assess associations between roles, decision areas, challenges and caregiver sociodemographics. RESULTS: Of 2703 caregiver respondents, 87.6% reported involvement in patient decisions about cancer treatment, including 1661 who responded to a subsection further detailing their roles and challenges with specific treatment decisions. Amongst these 1661 caregivers, 22.2% reported an observing role, 21.3% a primary decision-making role, 53.9% a shared decision-making role and 18.1% a role delegating decisions to the healthcare team. Most caregivers (60.4%) faced ≥1 challenge, the most frequent being not knowing how treatments would affect the patient's physical condition (24.8%) and quality of life (23.2%). In multivariable models, being Hispanic/Latino/a was the strongest predictor of facing at least one challenge (b = -0.581, Wald = 10.69, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Most caregivers were involved in patients' cancer treatment decisions. The major challenge was not understanding how treatments would impact patients' physical health and quality of life. Challenges may be more commonly faced by Hispanic/Latino/a caregivers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The CancerCare® survey was developed in partnership with caregiving services and research experts to describe the role of cancer family caregivers in patient decision-making and assess their needs for support. All survey items were reviewed by a CancerCare advisory board that included five professional patient advocates and piloted by a CancerCare social worker and other staff who provide counselling to cancer caregivers.

Structure and integration of specialty palliative care in three NCI-designated cancer centers: a mixed methods case study.

INTRODUCTION: Early access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration. METHODS: Mixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites' palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices. RESULTS: Sites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of "favorable" organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care. CONCLUSION: Integration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients.

Patient-reported discrimination among limited-resourced cancer survivors: a brief report.

PURPOSE: Healthcare discrimination has been associated with health disparities including lower cancer screenings, higher medical mistrust, and strained patient-provider relationships. Our study sought to understand patient-reported discrimination among cancer survivors with limited resources living in the United States. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used cross-sectional survey data distributed by the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in 12/2020 and 07/2021. Respondents reported source and reason of healthcare discrimination. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, annual household income, Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA), Area Deprivation Index (ADI), employment status, cancer type, and number of comorbidities were independent variables of interest. The association between these variables and patient-reported healthcare discrimination was estimated using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from a multivariable modified Poisson regression model with robust standard errors. FINDINGS: A total of 587 cancer survivors were included in our analysis. Most respondents were female (72%) and aged ≥56 (62%); while 33% were Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color. Overall, 23% reported receipt of discrimination, with the majority reporting doctor, nurse, or healthcare provider as the source (58%). Most common reasons for discrimination included disease status (42%), income/ability to pay (36%), and race and ethnicity (17%). In the adjusted model, retired survivors were 62% less likely to report discrimination compared to those employed (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.23-0.64). Additionally, survivors with ≥3 comorbidities were 86% more likely to report discrimination compared to those survivors with no non-cancer comorbidities (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.26-2.72). IMPLICATIONS: Cancer survivors with limited resources reported substantial discrimination most often from a healthcare provider and most commonly for disease status and income. Discrimination should be mitigated to provide equitable and high-quality cancer care.

Associations between geography, decision-making style, and interest in cancer clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials offer novel treatments, which are essential to high quality cancer care. Patients living in rural areas are often underrepresented in clinical trials due to several factors. This study evaluated the association between rurality and interest in clinical trial participation, change in interest, and treatment decision-making style preference. METHODS: This cohort study included patients with cancer receiving oncology care at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from 2017 to 2019. Associations between treatment decision-making preference and the interaction between rurality and area deprivation were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Initial interest in clinical trial participation and change in interest were analyzed using modified Poisson regressions with robust standard errors. Initial interest model was stratified by Area Deprivation Index (ADI; higher vs. lower disadvantaged). RESULTS: In adjusted models, patients in rural versus urban areas had similar initial interest in clinical trials, both those in higher (40% vs. 50%) and lower disadvantaged settings (54% vs. 62%). Additionally, rural versus urban patients had similar change of clinical trial interest for both those who changed from uninterested-to-interested (31% vs. 26%) and interested-to-uninterested (47% vs. 42%). CONCLUSION: This study compares the interest in clinical trial participation among patients living in rural and urban settings. Lack of interest may be secondary to barriers that patients in rural areas face (e.g., transportation, financial, access). Most rural patients prefer a shared treatment decision-making style, which should be considered when identifying interventions to increase enrollment of underserved rural patients in clinical trials.

A lay navigator-led, early palliative care intervention for African American and rural family caregivers of individuals with advanced cancer (Project Cornerstone): Results of a pilot randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) Cornerstone-a lay navigator-led, early palliative care telehealth intervention for African American/Black and/or rural-dwelling family caregivers of individuals with advanced cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03464188). METHODS: This was a pilot randomized trial (November 2019 to March 2021). Family caregivers of patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV, solid-tumor cancers were randomized to receive either an intervention or usual care. Intervention caregivers were paired with a specially trained lay navigator who delivered 6 weekly, 20-minute to 60-minute telehealth coaching sessions plus monthly follow-up for 24 weeks, reviewing skills in stress management, self-care, getting help, staying organized, and future planning. Feasibility was assessed according to the completion of sessions and questionnaires (predefined as a completion rate ≥80%). Acceptability was determined through intervention participants' ratings of their likelihood of recommending the intervention. Measures of caregiver distress and quality of life were collected at 8 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-three family caregivers were randomized (usual care, n = 32; intervention, n = 31). Caregivers completed 65% of intervention sessions and 87% of questionnaires. Average ratings for recommending the program were 9.4, from 1 (not at all likely) to 10 (extremely likely). Over 24 weeks, the mean ± SE Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score improved by 0.30 ± 1.44 points in the intervention group and worsened by 1.99 ± 1.39 points in the usual care group (difference, -2.29; Cohen d, -0.32). The mean between-group difference scores in caregiver quality of life was -1.56 (usual care - intervention; d, -0.07). Similar outcome results were observed for patient participants. CONCLUSIONS: The authors piloted ENABLE Cornerstone, an intervention for African American and rural-dwelling advanced cancer family caregivers. The acceptability of the intervention and data collection rates were high, and the preliminary efficacy for caregiver distress was promising. LAY SUMMARY: To date, very few programs have been developed to support under-resourced cancer family caregivers. To address this need, the authors successfully pilot tested an early palliative care program, called Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends (ENABLE) Cornerstone, for African American and rural family caregivers of individuals with advanced cancer. Cornerstone is led by specially trained lay people and involves a series of weekly phone sessions focused on coaching caregivers to manage stress and provide effective support to patients with cancer. The authors are now testing Cornerstone in a larger trial. If the program demonstrates benefit, it may yield a model of caregiver support that could be widely implemented.

Physician Perspectives on Reducing Curative Cancer Treatment Intensity for Populations Underrepresented in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, particularly in breast cancer where risk of recurrence is low. Little is known about physician perspectives on delivering less intense treatment for patients who are not well represented in clinical trials. METHODS: Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists explored their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer, with a focus on breast cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. Facilitators of comfort included the sentiment that "biology is biology" (such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered), the strength of the evidence, inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations, and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included potential harm over the patient's lifetime, concerns about groups that had minimal participants, application to younger patients, and extending findings to diverse populations. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy was desired. CONCLUSIONS: The majority (92%) of physicians reported that they would de-implement treatment for patients poorly represented in clinical trials testing less treatment, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations. Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03248258.

Exclusion criteria of breast cancer clinical trial protocols: a descriptive analysis.

PURPOSE: 3-8% of US adults with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial due to various barriers to enrollment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variability of eligibility criteria, which currently have no standard guidelines. METHODS: This descriptive analysis utilized all therapeutic breast protocols offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between 2004 and 2020. Exclusion criteria were abstracted using OnCore and ClinicalTrials.gov. Laboratory values included liver function tests and hematologic labs. Comorbid conditions included congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and prior cancer history. Comorbid conditions were further analyzed by amount of time protocols required participants to be from diagnosis or exacerbation-free. RESULTS: 102 protocols were eligible. Among liver laboratory values, bilirubin (78%) was included in most protocols ranging from institutional upper limit of normal (ULN) (9%) to 3xULN (2%), with 1.5xULN (56%) being most common. Similar variability was observed in alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase. Among hematological labs, 82% of protocols defined a lower limit of acceptable absolute neutrophil count ranging from 500 µL (1%) to 1800 µL (1%), with 1500 µL (64%) being most common. Of the comorbid conditions, exclusion criteria varied for congestive heart failure (49%), an acute exacerbation of cardiovascular disease (80%), CNS metastases (59%), and a prior cancer (66%). The allowable timeframe varied between protocols for cardiovascular disease and prior cancer. CONCLUSION: Substantial heterogeneity was observed across laboratory values and comorbid variables among protocols. Future research should focus on defining standardized eligibility criteria while allowing for deviation based on drug specificity.

The impact of race and ethnicity in breast cancer-disparities and implications for precision oncology.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and is one of the leading causes of cancer death. The incidence, pathological features, and clinical outcomes in breast cancer differ by geographical distribution and across racial and ethnic populations. Importantly, racial and ethnic diversity in breast cancer clinical trials is lacking, with both Blacks and Hispanics underrepresented. In this forum article, breast cancer researchers from across the globe discuss the factors contributing to racial and ethnic breast cancer disparities and highlight specific implications of precision oncology approaches for equitable provision of breast cancer care to improve outcomes and address disparities.

Facilitators and barriers to reducing chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a qualitative analysis of interviews with patients and patient advocates.

BACKGROUND: As the combination of systemic and targeted chemotherapies is associated with severe adverse side effects and long-term health complications, there is interest in reducing treatment intensity for patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Clinical trials are needed to determine the feasibility of reducing treatment intensity while maintaining 3-year recurrence-free survival of greater than 92%. To recruit participants for these trials, it is important to understand patient perspectives on reducing chemotherapy. METHODS: We collected qualitative interview data from twenty-four patients with Stage II-III breast cancer and sixteen patient advocates. Interviews explored potential barriers and facilitators to participation in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy. As the COVID-19 pandemic struck during data collection, seventeen participants were asked about the potential impact of COVID-19 on their interest in these trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and researchers used qualitative content analysis to code for dominant themes. RESULTS: Seventeen participants (42.5%) expressed interest in participating in a trial of reduced chemotherapy. Barriers to reducing chemotherapy included (1) fear of recurrence and inefficacy, (2) preference for aggressive treatment, (3) disinterest in clinical trials, (4) lack of information about expected outcomes, (5) fear of regret, and (6) having young children. Facilitators included (1) avoiding physical toxicity, (2) understanding the scientific rationale of reducing chemotherapy, (3) confidence in providers, (4) consistent monitoring and the option to increase dosage, (5) fewer financial and logistical challenges, and (6) contributing to scientific knowledge. Of those asked, nearly all participants said they would be more motivated to reduce treatment intensity in the context of COVID-19, primarily to avoid exposure to the virus while receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with EBC, there is significant interest in alleviating treatment-related toxicity by reducing chemotherapeutic intensity. Patients will be more apt to participate in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy if these are framed in terms of customizing treatment to the individual patient and added benefit-reduced toxicities, higher quality of life during treatment and lower risk of long-term complications-rather than in terms of taking treatments away or doing less than the standard of care. Doctor-patient rapport and provider support will be crucial in this process.

Determinants of telemedicine adoption among financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a nationwide study.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic among financially distressed patients with cancer, with respect to the determinants of adoption and patterns of utilization, has yet to be delineated. We sought to systematically characterize telemedicine utilization in financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationwide survey data assessing telemedicine use in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic collected by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in December 2020. Patients were characterized as financially distressed by self-reporting limited financial resources to manage out-of-pocket costs, psychological distress, and/or adaptive coping behaviors. Primary study outcome was telemedicine utilization during the pandemic. Secondary outcomes were telemedicine utilization volume and modality preferences. Multivariable and Poisson regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with telemedicine use. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 627 patients with cancer responded to the PAF survey. Telemedicine adoption during the pandemic was reported by 67% of patients, with most (63%) preferring video visits. Younger age (19-35 age compared to ≥ 75 age) (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.47-25.1) and more comorbidities (≥ 3 comorbidities compared to cancer only) (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.65) were factors associated with telemedicine adoption. Younger age (19-35 years) (incidence rate ratios [IRR], 1.78; 95% CI, 24-115%) and higher comorbidities (≥ 3) (IRR; 1.36; 95% CI, 20-55%) were factors associated with higher utilization volume. As area deprivation index increased by 10 units, the number of visits decreased by 3% (IRR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.03-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid adoption of telemedicine may exacerbate existing inequities, particularly among vulnerable financially distressed patients with cancer. Policy-level interventions are needed for the equitable and efficient provision of this service.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out. METHODS: This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04809740 ; date of registration 3/22/2021.

An open-label, pilot study of veliparib and lapatinib in patients with metastatic, triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose)-polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have been approved for cancer patients with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) mutations, and efforts to expand the utility of PARPi beyond BRCA1/2 are ongoing. In preclinical models of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with intact DNA repair, we have previously shown an induced synthetic lethality with combined EGFR inhibition and PARPi. Here, we report the safety and clinical activity of lapatinib and veliparib in patients with metastatic TNBC. METHODS: A first-in-human, pilot study of lapatinib and veliparib was conducted in metastatic TNBC (NCT02158507). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were objective response rates and pharmacokinetic evaluation. Gene expression analysis of pre-treatment tumor biopsies was performed. Key eligibility included TNBC patients with measurable disease and prior anthracycline-based and taxane chemotherapy. Patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled, of which 17 were evaluable for response. The median number of prior therapies in the metastatic setting was 1 (range 0-2). Fifty percent of patients were Caucasian, 45% African-American, and 5% Hispanic. Of evaluable patients, 4 demonstrated a partial response and 2 had stable disease. There were no dose-limiting toxicities. Most AEs were limited to grade 1 or 2 and no drug-drug interactions noted. Exploratory gene expression analysis suggested baseline DNA repair pathway score was lower and baseline immunogenicity was higher in the responders compared to non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Lapatinib plus veliparib therapy has a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in advanced TNBC. Further investigation of dual therapy with EGFR inhibition and PARP inhibition is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02158507 . Registered on 12 September 2014.