Pain and Its Association with Survival for Black and White Individuals with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the United States.

Bone pain is a well-known quality-of-life detriment for individuals with prostate cancer and is associated with survival. This study expands previous work into racial differences in multiple patient-reported dimensions of pain and the association between baseline and longitudinal pain and mortality. This is a prospective cohort study of individuals with newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer enrolled in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN) from 2017 to 2023 at U.S. sites. Differences in four pain scores at study enrollment by race were investigated. Cox proportional hazards models and joint longitudinal survival models were fit for each of the scale scores to estimate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association with all-cause mortality. The cohort included 879 individuals (20% self-identifying as Black) enrolled at 38 U.S. sites. Black participants had worse pain at baseline compared with White participants, most notably a higher average pain rating (mean 3.1 vs. 2.2 on a 10-point scale). For each pain scale, higher pain was associated with higher mortality after adjusting for measures of disease burden, particularly for severe bone pain compared with no pain (HR, 2.47; 95% CI: 1.44-4.22). The association between pain and all-cause mortality was stronger for participants with castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and was similar among Black and White participants. Overall, Black participants reported worse pain than White participants, and more severe pain was associated with higher mortality independent of clinical covariates for all pain scales. SIGNIFICANCE: Black participants with advanced prostate cancer reported worse pain than White participants, and more pain was associated with worse survival. More holistic clinical assessments of pain in this population are needed to determine the factors upon which to intervene to improve quality of life and survivorship, particularly for Black individuals.

Using Music as a Tool for Distress Reduction During Cancer Chemotherapy Treatment.

PURPOSE: Music may be an effective therapeutic tool during cancer treatment to improve patient psychological and physical well-being. Current research shows a positive effect of music on psychological outcomes; however, many of these studies lacked significant sample size and rigor in monitoring type of music used and duration of music use during treatment. METHODS: Participants (N = 750) in this open-label, multisite, day-based permuted block randomization study were adult patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy infusion. Patients were randomly assigned to either music (listen to music for up to 60 minutes) or control (no music) conditions. Music patients were allowed to self-select an iPod shuffle programmed with up to 500 minutes of music from a single genre (eg, Motown, 60s, 70s, 80s, classical, and country). Outcomes were self-reported change in pain, positive and negative mood, and distress. RESULTS: Patients who listened to self-selected music during infusion showed significant benefit in improved positive mood and reduced negative mood and distress (but not pain) from pre- to post-intervention (all two-sample t-tests P < .05). LASSO penalized linear regression models showed a selective benefit for some patients on the basis of relationship (P = .032) and employment (P = .029) status with those who were married or widowed and those on disability showing better outcomes. CONCLUSION: Music medicine is a low-touch, low-risk, and cost-effective way to manage patients' psychological well-being in the often stressful context of a cancer infusion clinic. Future research should be directed to understanding what other factors may mitigate negative mood states and pain for certain groups during treatment.

Addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation among Black and White men with prostate cancer through the PACCT study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer clinical trial participation is low and inequitable. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) addressed systemic and interpersonal barriers through an observational study of eligibility and an intervention to improve patient-physician communication and trial invitation rates. METHODS: Physicians at two comprehensive cancer centers and Black and White men with prostate cancer participated. Patients were followed for 2 years to determine whether they became potentially eligible for an available therapeutic trial. Potentially eligible patients were randomized to receive a trials-focused Question Prompt List or usual care. Patient-physician interactions were video-recorded. Outcomes included communication quality and trial invitation rates. Descriptive analyses assessed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and eligibility and effects of the intervention on outcomes. RESULTS: Only 44 (22.1%) of participating patients (n = 199) became potentially eligible for an available clinical trial. Patients with higher incomes were more often eligible (>$80,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 6.06 [SD, 1.97]; $40,000-$79,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 4.40 [SD, 1.81]). Among eligible patients randomized to the intervention (n = 19) or usual care (n = 25), Black patients randomized to the intervention reported participating more actively than usual care patients, while White intervention patients reported participating less actively (difference, 0.41 vs. -0.34). Intervention patients received more trial invitations than usual care patients (73.7% vs. 60.0%); this effect was greater for Black (80.0% vs. 30.0%) than White patients (80.0% vs. 66.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the greatest enrollment barrier is eligibility for an available trial, but a communication intervention can improve communication quality and trial invitation rates, especially for eligible Black patients.

DISCO App: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer in a diverse patient population.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity, the material and psychological burden of the cost of treatment, affects 30-50% of people with cancer, even those with health insurance. The burden of treatment cost can affect treatment adherence and, ultimately, mortality. Financial toxicity is a health equity issue, disproportionately affecting patients who are racial/ethnic minorities, have lower incomes, and are < 65 years old. Patient education about treatment cost and patient-oncologist cost discussions are recommended as ways to address financial toxicity; however, research shows cost discussions occur infrequently (Altice et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:djw205, 2017; Schnipper et al. J Clin Oncol 34:2925-34, 2016; Zafar et al. Oncologist 18:381-90, 2013; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 2010). Our overall goal is to address the burden of financial toxicity and work toward health equity through a tailorable education and communication intervention, the DISCO App. The aim of this longitudinal randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness of the DISCO App on the outcomes in a population of economically and racially/ethnically diverse cancer patients from all age groups. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer at a NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in Detroit, MI, will be randomized to one of three study arms: one usual care arm (arm 1) and two intervention arms (arms 2 and 3). All intervention patients (arms 2 and 3) will receive the DISCO App before the second interaction with their oncologist, and patients in arm 3 will receive an intervention booster. The DISCO App, presented on an iPad, includes an educational video about treatment costs, ways to manage them, and the importance of discussing them with oncologists. Patients enter socio-demographic information (e.g., employment, insurance status) and indicate their financial concerns. They then receive a tailored list of questions to consider asking their oncologist. All patients will have up to two interactions with their oncologist video recorded and complete measures at baseline, after the recorded interactions and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the second interaction. Outcome measures will assess discussions of cost, communication quality, knowledge of treatment costs, self-efficacy for treatment cost management, referrals for support, short- and longer-term financial toxicity, and treatment adherence. DISCUSSION: If effective, this intervention will improve awareness of and discussions of treatment cost and alleviate the burden of financial toxicity. It may be especially helpful to groups disproportionately affected by financial toxicity, helping to achieve health equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04766190. Registered on February 23, 2021.

Willingness to Discuss Clinical Trials Among Black vs White Men With Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Black individuals are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Black and White men with prostate cancer differ in their willingness to discuss clinical trials with their physicians and, if so, whether patient-level barriers statistically mediate racial differences. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional survey study used baseline data from Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials, a randomized clinical trial to increase Black individuals' enrollment in prostate cancer clinical trials. Data were collected from 2016 through 2019 at 2 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers; participants were Black and White men with intermediate-risk to high-risk prostate cancer. In mediation analysis, path models regressed willingness onto race and each potential mediator, simultaneously including direct paths from race to each mediator. Significant indirect effect sizes served as evidence for mediation. EXPOSURES: Race was the primary exposure. Potential mediators included age, education, household income, perceived economic burden, pain/physical limitation, health literacy, general trust in physicians, and group-based medical suspicion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the answer to a single question: "If you were offered a cancer clinical trial, would you be willing to hear more information about it?" RESULTS: A total of 205 participants were included (92 Black men and 113 White men), with a mean (range) age of 65.7 (45-89) years; 32% had a high school education or lower, and 27.5% had a household income of less than $40 000. Most (88.3%) reported being definitely or probably willing to discuss trials, but White participants were more likely to endorse this highest category of willingness than Black participants (82% vs 64%; χ22 = 8.81; P = .01). Compared with White participants, Black participants were younger (F1,182 = 8.67; P < .001), less educated (F1,182 = 22.79; P < .001), with lower income (F1,182 = 79.59; P < .001), greater perceived economic burden (F1,182 = 42.46; P < .001), lower health literacy (F1,184 = 9.84; P = .002), and greater group-based medical suspicion (F1,184 = 21.48; P < .001). Only group-based medical suspicion significantly mediated the association between race and willingness to discuss trials (indirect effect, -0.22; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of men with prostate cancer, most participants were willing to discuss trials, but Black men were significantly less willing than White men. Black men were more likely to believe that members of their racial group should be suspicious of the health care system, and this belief was associated with lower willingness to discuss trials. Addressing medical mistrust may improve equity in clinical research.

Muscadine Grape Skin Extract (MPX) in Men with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

Purpose: MuscadinePlus (MPX), a commercial preparation of pulverized muscadine grape skin, was evaluated as a therapeutic option for men with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer wishing to defer androgen deprivation therapy.Experimental Design: This was a 12-month, multicenter, placebo-controlled, two-dose, double-blinded trial of MPX in 125 men with BCR prostate cancer, powered to detect a PSA doubling time (PSADT) difference of 6 months (low dose) and 12 months (high dose) relative to placebo. Participants were stratified (baseline PSADT, Gleason score) and randomly assigned 1:2:2 to receive placebo, 500 mg MPX (low), or 4,000 mg MPX (high) daily. Correlates included superoxide dismutase-2 (SOD2) genotype, lipid peroxidation, and polyphenol pharmacokinetics.Results: The evaluable population included 112 patients, all treated for at least 6 months and 62% treated for 12 months. No significant difference was found in PSADT change between control and treatment arms (P = 0.81): control 0.9 months (n = 20; range, 6.7-83.1), low dose 1.5 months (n = 52; range, 10.3-87.2), high dose 0.9 months (n = 40; range, 27.3-88.1). One high-dose patient experienced objective response. No drug-related CTCAE grade 3-4 adverse events were seen. In a preplanned exploratory analysis, PSADT pre-to-post increase was significant in the 27 (26%) genotyped patients with SOD2 Alanine/Alanine genotype (rs4880 T>C polymorphism) on MPX (pooled treatment arms; 6.4 months, P = 0.02), but not in control (1.8 months, P = 0.25).Conclusions: Compared with placebo, MPX did not significantly prolong PSADT in BCR patients over two different doses. Exploratory analysis revealed a patient population with potential benefit that would require further study. Clin Cancer Res; 24(2); 306-15. ©2017 AACR.

Physicians' Use of Patients' Daily Reports of Quality of Life to Evaluate Treatment Response in Phase I Cancer Trials.

For cancer patients on Phase I trials, one of the most important physician decisions is whether or not patients are deriving benefit from therapy. With an increasing number of cytostatic treatment agents, the criteria to determine patient response to Phase I treatment has become harder to define. Physicians are increasingly looking to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as quality of life (QOL) to help evaluate treatment response. Electronic daily diary (EDD) devices can be used by patients to report their QOL over extended periods of time, thereby providing a more accurate picture of how patients are affected by treatment on a daily basis. However, questions remain about how to integrate this patient-reported information into decisions about Phase I treatment. This study investigated how physicians use patients' daily QOL reports to evaluate patient response to Phase I treatment. Data were collected over a 4-month period from Phase I patients (N = 30) and physicians (N = 3) in an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Patients completed daily QOL reports using EDD devices and physicians were provided with a summary of patients' QOL before each visit. After the visit, doctors recorded their treatment decision and also rated the importance of four biomedical factors (Toxicity, Imaging, Labs, and Performance Status) and QOL in their treatment decision for that visit. Although physicians rated QOL as being very important in evaluating treatment response, in practice, when predictors of their decisions were analyzed, results showed they relied exclusively on biomedical data (Toxicity, Imaging) to make Phase I treatment decisions. Questions remain about the utility and effective integration of QOL and biomedical data in clinical decision-making processes in Phase I clinical trials.