Developing a Virtual Equity Hub: Adapting the Tumor Board Model for Equity in Cancer Care.

We define cancer equity as all people having as the same opportunity for cancer prevention, treatment, and survivorship care. However, marginalized populations continue to experience avoidable and unjust disparities in cancer care, access to clinical trials, and cancer survival. Racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with low socioeconomic status, Medicaid insurance, limited health literacy, disabilities, and mental health disorders are more likely to experience delays to cancer diagnosis and less likely to receive guideline-concordant cancer care. These disparities are impacted by the social determinants of health including structural discrimination, racism, poverty, and inequities in access to healthcare and clinical trials. There is an urgent need to develop and adapt evidence-based interventions in collaboration with community partners that have potential to address the social determinants of health and build capacity for cancer care for underserved populations. We established the Virtual Equity Hub by developing a collaborative network connecting a comprehensive cancer center, academic safety net hospital, and community health centers and affiliates. The Virtual Equity Hub utilizes a virtual tumor board, an evidence-based approach that increases access to multi-specialty cancer care and oncology subspecialty expertise. We adapted the tumor board model by engaging person-centered teams of multi-disciplinary specialists across health systems, addressing the social determinants of health, and applying community-based research principles with a focus on populations with poor cancer survival. The virtual tumor board included monthly videoconferences, case discussion, sharing of expertise, and a focus on addressing barriers to care and trial participation. Specifically, we piloted virtual tumor boards for breast oncology, neuro-oncology, and individuals with cancer and serious mental illness. The Virtual Equity Hub demonstrated promise at building capacity for clinicians to care for patients with complex needs and addressing barriers to care. Research is needed to measure the impact, reach, and sustainability of virtual equity models for patients with cancer.

The adjuvant use of capecitabine for residual disease following pre-operative chemotherapy for breast cancer: Challenges applying CREATE-X to a US population.

INTRODUCTION: The CREATE-X study, conducted in Japan and South Korea, established capecitabine as an adjuvant treatment option for patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease (RD) following neoadjuvant anthracycline or taxane-based chemotherapy. However, there are no reports on the tolerability and outcomes of adjuvant capecitabine in the US setting following publication of the CREATE-X data. METHODS: We retrospectively collected treatment and tolerability data from the medical records of the first 23 TNBC patients who received adjuvant capecitabine for RD post neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our institution. Disease-free survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median starting dosage of capecitabine was 1871 mg/m2/day, most commonly divided into two daily doses on days 1-14 of each 21 day cycle. 34.8% of patients completed the treatment as prescribed. Side effects associated with treatment were common with 69.6% of patients experiencing hand-foot syndrome, 39.1% of patients experiencing diarrhea, and 13.0% of patients requiring hospitalization for side effects. Of 23 patients treated with adjuvant capecitabine, 34.8% completed the planned dose, 30.4% completed with dose reduction, and 34.8% discontinued early. At a median follow-up time of 14 months, the median disease-free survival was 22 months, with 30.4% of patients experiencing recurrence. CONCLUSION: Tolerability was poor overall compared to the CREATE-X cohort. Administering adjuvant capecitabine for TNBC patients with residual disease in the United States is challenging given differences in tolerability. More research is needed to understand how poor tolerability will affect the efficacy of this approach in the US population.

Implementation of a Brief Screening Tool to Identify Needs of Breast Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Innovation in health care delivery is needed to improve care for cancer survivors. We report our experience with adapting screening questions from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline to evaluate the needs of breast cancer survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adapted the NCCN-recommended screening questions into a plain language, self-administered 1-page intake questionnaire. The tool was administered to a convenience sample of female breast cancer survivors at follow-up oncology and primary care visits. Domains included symptoms, lifestyle concerns, and financial issues. Frequency of concerns was assessed as "never," "rarely," "sometimes," "very frequently," and "always." We evaluated feasibility and utility of administration and the prevalence and frequency of patient-reported concerns. RESULTS: The questionnaire was highly acceptable to patients and enhanced visits for clinicians. Clinicians reported that it led to discussion of issues that may not otherwise be addressed in the visit and did not find it burdensome. The most commonly endorsed patient concerns were desire to improve fitness or nutrition, worry about cancer recurrence, and insomnia. A majority also reported feeling anxiety and aches or pains in joints or extremities. Several issues known to be underreported in clinic visits were frequently endorsed, included sexual dissatisfaction and memory impairments. Clinicians suggested incorporating the tool into the electronic health record to increase utility and awareness. CONCLUSION: Screening for individual needs among breast cancer survivors is feasible, efficient, and may identify prevalent issues that otherwise can be missed in routine survivorship care.

Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.

Purpose To make recommendations regarding the use of bisphosphonates and other bone-modifying agents as adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. Methods Cancer Care Ontario and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. Results Adjuvant bisphosphonates were found to reduce bone recurrence and improve survival in postmenopausal patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. In this guideline, postmenopausal includes patients with natural menopause or that induced by ovarian suppression or ablation. Absolute benefit is greater in patients who are at higher risk of recurrence, and almost all trials were conducted in patients who also received systemic therapy. Most studies evaluated zoledronic acid or clodronate, and data are extremely limited for other bisphosphonates. While denosumab was found to reduce fractures, long-term survival data are still required. Recommendations It is recommended that, if available, zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) or clodronate (1,600 mg/d orally) be considered as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who are deemed candidates for adjuvant systemic therapy. Further research comparing different bone-modifying agents, doses, dosing intervals, and durations is required. Risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal impairment should be assessed, and any pending dental or oral health problems should be dealt with prior to starting treatment. Data for adjuvant denosumab look promising but are currently insufficient to make any recommendation. Use of these agents to reduce fragility fractures in patients with low bone mineral density is beyond the scope of the guideline. Recommendations are not meant to restrict such use of bone-modifying agents in these situations. Additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-adjuvant-bisphosphonates-guideline , www.asco.org/guidelineswiki , https://www.cancercareontario.ca/guidelines-advice/types-of-cancer/breast .

Trends in the use of mastectomy in women with small node-negative breast cancer treated at US academic centers.

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) provides equivalent survival outcomes to unilateral mastectomy. There is no survival advantage to bilateral mastectomy in average risk breast cancer. Among a cohort of breast cancer patients expected to be candidates for BCS, we examined choice of surgery and factors associated with it. A prospective cohort study of unilateral clinical Stage I breast cancer patients treated at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers from 2000 to 2009 was performed. The proportion of patients who initially underwent mastectomy versus BCS and time to definitive surgery and chemotherapy were examined. Of 10,249 patients, 23 % underwent mastectomy as an initial surgery. No decline in the use of mastectomy as initial surgery was found. There was significant institutional variation, with rates of initial mastectomy ranging from 14 to 30 % (adjusted odds ratio: 0.42-1.38). Tumor characteristics were associated with surgical option, but with small absolute differences. Of those who received initial mastectomy, 22 % had bilateral mastectomy, with an increase over time (2000:13 % vs. 2009:30 %) and substantial institutional variation (11-34 %). Women treated with initial mastectomy had longer median times from diagnosis to complete definitive surgery (6 vs. 4 weeks) and to start of adjuvant chemotherapy (12 vs. 11 weeks). Among Stage I breast cancer, the overall use of mastectomy did not change significantly over 10 years; however, an increasing proportion of women with unilateral cancer had bilateral mastectomy, and there was wide variation in type of surgery by institution. Further studies to assess reasons for the observed wide variation are warranted.

Variation in type of adjuvant chemotherapy received among patients with stage I breast cancer: A multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stage I breast cancer, there is significant uncertainty concerning the optimal threshold at which to consider chemotherapy, and when considered, there is controversy regarding whether to consider non-intensive versus intensive regimens. The authors examined the types and costs of adjuvant chemotherapy received among patients with stage I breast cancer. METHODS: The current study was a prospective cohort study including patients with stage I breast cancer who were treated at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network center from 2000 through 2009. Stage was defined according to the version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual applicable at the time of diagnosis. Stratifying by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), the authors examined the percentage of patients receiving intensive versus non-intensive chemotherapy regimens and the factors associated with type of chemotherapy administered using multivariable logistic regression. Costs of the most common regimens were estimated. RESULTS: Of 8907 patients, 33% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among those individuals, there was an increase in the use of intensive chemotherapy within the last decade, from 31% in 2000 through 2005 to 63% in 2008 through 2009 (including an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab) among patients with HER2-positive disease and from 15% in 2000 through 2005 to 41% in 2008 through 2009 among patients with HER2-negative disease (32% of patients with hormone receptor-positive and 59% of patients with triple-negative disease). Among patients treated with non-intensive regimens, there was an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide noted, with a decrease in the use of the doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide combination. The choice of regimen varied significantly by institution. The major drivers of cost variation were the incorporation of biologics (eg, trastuzumab) and growth factors, with significant variation even within non-intensive and intensive regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, there was an increase in use of intensive regimens among Stage I breast cancer, with striking institutional and cost variations.

Risk of marrow neoplasms after adjuvant breast cancer therapy: the national comprehensive cancer network experience.

PURPOSE: Outcomes for early-stage breast cancer have improved. First-generation adjuvant chemotherapy trials reported a 0.27% 8-year cumulative incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia. Incomplete ascertainment and follow-up may have underestimated subsequent risk of treatment-associated marrow neoplasm (MN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined the MN frequency in 20,063 patients with stage I to III breast cancer treated at US academic centers between 1998 and 2007. Time-to-event analyses were censored at first date of new cancer event, last contact date, or death and considered competing risks. Cumulative incidence, hazard ratios (HRs), and comparisons with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results estimates were obtained. Marrow cytogenetics data were reviewed. RESULTS: Fifty patients developed MN (myeloid, n = 42; lymphoid, n = 8) after breast cancer (median follow-up, 5.1 years). Patients who developed MN had similar breast cancer stage distribution, race, and chemotherapy exposure but were older compared with patients who did not develop MN (median age, 59.1 v 53.9 years, respectively; P = .03). Two thirds of patients had complex MN cytogenetics. Risk of MN was significantly increased after surgery plus chemotherapy (HR, 6.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 36.1) or after all modalities (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation; HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.6 to 35.8), compared with no treatment with chemotherapy. MN rates per 1,000 person-years were 0.16 (surgery), 0.43 (plus radiation), 0.46 (plus chemotherapy), and 0.54 (all three modalities). Cumulative incidence of MN doubled between years 5 and 10 (0.24% to 0.48%); 9% of patients were alive at 10 years. CONCLUSION: In this large early-stage breast cancer cohort, MN risk after radiation and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was low but higher than previously described. Risk continued to increase beyond 5 years. Individual risk of MN must be balanced against the absolute survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Outcomes by tumor subtype and treatment pattern in women with small, node-negative breast cancer: a multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE: Treatment decisions for patients with T1a,bN0M0 breast cancer are challenging. We studied the time trends in use of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival outcomes among these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study within the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Database that included 4,113 women with T1a,bN0M0 breast cancer treated between 2000 and 2009. Tumors were grouped by size (T1a, T1b), biologic subtype defined by hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and receipt of chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 5.5 years. Eight percent of patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative tumors were treated with chemotherapy. Fifty-two percent of those with HER2-positive or HR-negative/HER2-negative breast cancers received chemotherapy, with an increase over the last decade. Survival outcomes diverged by subtype and size, but the 5-year distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) did not exceed 10% in any subgroup. The 5-year DRFS for patients with T1a tumors untreated with chemotherapy ranged from 93% to 98% (n = 49 to 972), and for patients with T1b tumors, it ranged from 90% to 96% (n = 17 to 2,005). Patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had the best DRFS estimates, and patients with HR-negative/HER2-negative tumors had the lowest. In this observational, nonrandomized cohort study, the 5-year DRFS for treated patients with T1a tumors was 100% for all subgroups (n = 12 to 33), and for patients with T1b tumors, it ranged from 94% to 96% (n = 88 to 241). CONCLUSION: Women with T1a,b tumors have an excellent prognosis without chemotherapy. Size and tumor subtype may identify patients in whom the rate of recurrence justifies consideration of chemotherapy. These patients represent an optimal group for evaluating less toxic adjuvant regimens to maintain efficacy while minimizing short- and long-term risks.

Impact of hormone receptor status on patterns of recurrence and clinical outcomes among patients with human epidermal growth factor-2-positive breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: In gene expression experiments, hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor-2 (HER2)-positive tumors generally cluster within the luminal B subset; whereas HR-negative/HER2-positive tumors reside in the HER2-enriched subset. We investigated whether the clinical behavior of HER2-positive tumors differs by HR status. METHODS: We evaluated 3,394 patients who presented to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers with stage I to III HER2-positive breast cancer between 2000 and 2007. Tumors were grouped as HR-positive/HER2-positive (HR+/HER2+) or HR-negative/HER2-positive (HR-/HER2+). Chi-square, logistic regression and Cox hazard proportional regression were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Median follow-up was four years. Patients with HR-/HER2+ tumors (n = 1,379, 41% of total) were more likely than those with HR+/HER-2+ disease (n = 2,015, 59% of total) to present with high histologic grade and higher stages (P <0.001). Recurrences were recorded for 458 patients. HR-/HER2+ patients were less likely to experience first recurrence in bone (univariate Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.53, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.34 to 0.82, P = 0.005) and more likely to recur in brain (univariate OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.93, P = 0.033). A lower risk of recurrence in bone persisted after adjusting for age, stage and adjuvant trastuzumab therapy (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.83, P = 0.005) and when first and subsequent sites of recurrence were both considered (multivariable OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.80, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Presenting features, patterns of recurrence and survival of HER2-positive breast cancer differed by HR status. These differences should be further explored and integrated in the design of clinical trials.

Patient navigation for underserved patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

The elimination of cancer disparities is critically important for lessening the burden of breast cancer (BC). Patient navigator programs (PNPs) have been shown to improve rates of BC screening in underserved communities, but there is a dearth of evidence regarding their benefits after the actual diagnosis of BC. We retrospectively examined sociodemographic characteristics, disease characteristics, and concordance to quality measures (QMs) of BC care among women participating in a PNP that services disadvantaged minority communities in the greater Boston area. Of the 186 PNP patients diagnosed with BC in 2001-2011 in three neighborhood community health centers, treatment data was available for 158 (85%) and race and disease stage information was available for 149 (80%). Regarding stage, 25% were diagnosed with in situ cancer, 32% had stage 1, 25% had stage 2, 13% had stage 3, and 5% had stage 4 BC. Guideline-indicated care was received by 70 of 74 patients (95%) for the hormonal therapy QM, 15 of 17 (88%) patients for the chemotherapy QM, and 65 of 71 (92%) patients for the radiation QM, all similar to published concordance rates at elite National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. These findings suggest that PNPs may facilitate evidence-based quality care for vulnerable populations. Future research should prospectively analyze quality metrics to assess measures to improve the process and outcomes of patient navigation in diverse underserved settings, compared with control non-navigated populations.