A randomized study of genetic education versus usual care in tumor profiling for advanced cancer in the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (EAQ152).

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm for precision oncology may obscure the psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with the implementation of tumor genetic sequencing. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer undergoing tumor-only genetic sequencing in the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial were randomized to a web-based genetic education intervention or usual care. The primary outcomes were knowledge, anxiety, depression, and cancer-specific distress collected at baseline (T0), posteducation (T1) and after results (T2). Two-sided, 2-sample t tests and univariate and multivariable generalized linear models were used. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-four patients (80% from NCI Community Oncology Research Program sites) were randomized to the web intervention (n = 293) or usual care (n = 301) before the receipt of results. Patients in the intervention arm had greater increases in knowledge (P for T1-T0 < .0001; P for T2-T0 = .003), but there were no significant differences in distress outcomes. In unadjusted moderator analyses, there was a decrease in cancer-specific distress among women (T0-T1) in the intervention arm but not among men. Patients with lower health literacy in the intervention arm had greater increases in cancer-specific distress and less decline in general anxiety (T0-T1) and greater increases in depression (T0-T2) in comparison with those receiving usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based genetic education before tumor-only sequencing results increases patient understanding and reduces distress in women. Refinements to the intervention could benefit low-literacy groups and men.

ECOG-ACRIN EAZ171: Prospective Validation Trial of Germline Predictors of Taxane-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Black Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Black women experience higher rates of taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) compared with White women when receiving adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel for early-stage breast cancer, leading to more dose reductions and higher recurrence rates. EAZ171 aimed to prospectively validate germline predictors of TIPN and compare rates of TIPN and dose reductions in Black women receiving (neo)adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel and once every 3 weeks docetaxel for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer who self-identified as Black and had intended to receive (neo)adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel or once every 3 weeks docetaxel were eligible, with planned accrual to 120 patients in each arm. Genotyping was performed to determine germline neuropathy risk. Grade 2-4 TIPN by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 was compared between high- versus low-risk genotypes and between once weekly paclitaxel versus once every 3 weeks docetaxel within 1 year. Patient-rated TIPN and patient-reported outcomes were compared using patient-reported outcome (PRO)-CTCAE and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty of 249 enrolled patients had genotype data, and 91 of 117 (77.8%) receiving once weekly paclitaxel and 87 of 118 (73.7%) receiving once every 3 weeks docetaxel were classified as high-risk. Physician-reported grade 2-4 TIPN was not significantly different in high- versus low-risk genotype groups with once weekly paclitaxel (47% v 35%; P = .27) or with once every 3 weeks docetaxel (28% v 19%; P = .47). Grade 2-4 TIPN was significantly higher in the once weekly paclitaxel versus once every 3 weeks docetaxel arm by both physician-rated CTCAE (45% v 29%; P = .02) and PRO-CTCAE (40% v 24%; P = .03). Patients receiving once weekly paclitaxel required more dose reductions because of TIPN (28% v 9%; P < .001) or any cause (39% v 25%; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Germline variation did not predict risk of TIPN in Black women receiving (neo)adjuvant once weekly paclitaxel or once every 3 weeks docetaxel. Once weekly paclitaxel was associated with significantly more grade 2-4 TIPN and required more dose reductions than once every 3 weeks docetaxel.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in OlympiA: A Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Adjuvant Olaparib in gBRCA1/2 Mutations and High-Risk Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2, high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment. METHODS: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .022; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: -1.6 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.3]; P = .017; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status. CONCLUSION: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients.

Lack of impact on polyp detection by fellow involvement during colonoscopy: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data regarding the impact of fellow involvement during colonoscopy on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) have been reported in the literature. AIMS: Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis to determine the impact of fellow participation during colonoscopy on the ADR and PDR. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, pertinent articles that reported ADR and/or PDR between attending physicians alone compared to gastroenterology fellows with attending physicians were obtained through database searches. Data was abstracted and pooled using a random effects model. The quality of each included study was ascertained using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and potential publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles that included 21,504 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria. The overall PDR and ADR were 44.4 and 30.8%, respectively. No significant differences were found between participant characteristics and colonoscopies performed with or without fellow participation. No significant differences were found in the relative rate of ADR (1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15) or PDR (1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14) with or without a fellow. An important limitation is that none of the included studies randomized fellow involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of a fellow during colonoscopy did not affect adenoma and polyp detection rates.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

Coordinating an Oncology Precision Medicine Clinic Within an Integrated Health System: Lessons Learned in Year One.

Precision medicine is a term describing strategies to promote health and prevent and treat disease based on an individual's genetic, molecular, and lifestyle characteristics. Oncology precision medicine (OPM) is a cancer treatment approach targeting cancer-specific genetic and molecular alterations. Implementation of an OPM clinical program optimally involves the support and collaboration of multiple departments, including administration, medical oncology, pathology, interventional radiology, genetics, research, and informatics. In this review, we briefly introduce the published evidence regarding OPM's potential effect on patient outcomes and discuss what we have learned over the first year of operating an OPM program within an integrated health care system (Aurora Health Care, Milwaukee, WI) comprised of multiple hospitals and clinics. We also report our experience implementing a specific OPM software platform used to embed molecular panel data into patients' electronic medical records.

Barriers to recruitment of rural patients in cancer clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute estimates that less than 5% of adult patients with cancer participate in clinical trials. This statistic has to improve in order for clinical trials to be more accurate and generalizable. Several studies have looked into the barriers to accrual among various patient subgroups. However, there are scant data regarding factors that act as barriers to accrual of rural patients. Our study aims to identify these barriers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among patients seen at the Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center at West Virginia University, 1,000 were randomly selected to receive a questionnaire by mail. Data obtained consisted of demographic and clinical information, as well as awareness about clinical trials, willingness to participate, and factors influencing participation. Patients had 6 weeks to respond. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one (24.1%) patients responded to the survey. Of these, 66.9% had heard about clinical trials, 19.6% reported that their health care team had discussed clinical trials, and 9.1% had participated in clinical trials. Respondents were more likely to be willing to participate in cancer prevention/screening trials than therapeutic trials. Regarding the decision not to participate in a clinical trial, patients cited discouragement from their oncologist, monetary burden, discouragement from family physician, commute, and lack of information as strongly or extremely influential factors. CONCLUSION: Our findings specify the need for patient and physician education through community outreach programs. Oncologists should be trained to discuss clinical trials and to address concerns regarding their availability, utility, and accessibility. Financial counseling may play an important role in improving accrual rates as well.