Functional decline in older breast cancer survivors treated with and without chemotherapy and non-cancer controls: results from the Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) prospective study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess whether physical functional decline in older women with early-stage breast cancer is driven by cancer, chemotherapy, or a combination of both. METHODS: We prospectively sampled three groups of women aged ≥ 65: 444 with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy (BC Chemo), 98 with early-stage breast cancer not receiving chemotherapy (BC Control), and 100 non-cancer controls (NC Control). Physical function was assessed at two timepoints (T1 [baseline] and T2 [3, 4, or 6 months]) using the Physical Functioning Subscale (PF-10) of the RAND 36-item Short Form. The primary endpoint was the change in PF-10 scores from T1 to T2, analyzed continuously and dichotomously (Yes/No, with "yes" indicating a PF-10 decline > 10 points, i.e., a substantial and clinically meaningful difference). RESULTS: Baseline PF-10 scores were similar across all groups. The BC Chemo group experienced a significant decline at T2, with a median change in PF-10 of -5 (interquartile range [IQR], -20, 0), while BC Control and NC Control groups showed a median change of 0 (IQR, -5, 5; p < 0.001). Over 30% of BC Chemo participants had a substantial decline in PF-10 vs. 8% in the BC Control and 5% in the NC Control groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the combination of breast cancer and chemotherapy contributes to accelerated functional decline. Our findings reinforce the need to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function, particularly during and after chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The high prevalence of accelerated functional decline in older women undergoing breast cancer chemotherapy underscores the urgency to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function and improving health outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01472094, Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) with Breast Cancer Study.

Immunotherapy utilization patterns in patients with advanced cancer and autoimmune disease.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy has been shown to improve cancer survival, but there are no consensus guidelines to inform use in patients with both cancer and autoimmune disease (AD). We sought to examine immunotherapy utilization patterns between cancer patients with and without AD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a de-identified nationwide oncology database. Patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma were included. Outcomes of interest included first-line immunotherapy, overall immunotherapy, and number of immunotherapy cycles. We used logistic and Poisson regression models to examine associations between AD and immunotherapy utilization patterns. RESULTS: A total of 25,076 patients were included (796 with AD). Patients with AD were more likely to be female, White, receive care at academic centers, and have ECOG ≥ 3. Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, AD was associated with lower odds of receiving first-line (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.82) and overall (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.94) immunotherapy. Among patients who received at least one cycle of immunotherapy, there was no difference in mean number of cycles received between patients with and without AD (11.3 and 10.5 cycles respectively). The incident rate of immunotherapy cycles received for patients with AD was 1.03 times that of patients without AD (95% CI 1.01-1.06). DISCUSSION: Patients with AD were less likely to receive immunotherapy as first-line and overall therapy for treatment of their advanced cancer. However, among those who did receive at least one cycle of immunotherapy, patients with AD received a similar number of cycles compared to patients without AD. This not only indicates that AD is not an absolute contraindication for immunotherapy in clinical practice but may also demonstrate overall treatment tolerability and net benefit in patients with AD.

Area Vulnerability and Disparities in Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Area-level measures of sociodemographic disadvantage may be associated with racial and ethnic disparities with respect to receipt of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but have not been investigated previously, to our knowledge. Objective: To assess the association between area-level measures of social vulnerability and racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of US Medicare beneficiaries with mRCC from 2015 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were diagnosed with mRCC from January 2015 through December 2019 and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 1 year before through 1 year after presumed diagnosis or until death. Data were analyzed from November 22, 2022, through January 26, 2024. Exposures: Five different county-level measures of disadvantage and 4 zip code-level measures of vulnerability or deprivation and segregation were used to dichotomize whether an individual resided in the most vulnerable quartile according to each metric. Patient-level factors included age, race and ethnicity, sex, diagnosis year, comorbidities, frailty, Medicare and Medicaid dual enrollment eligibility, and Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were receipt and type of systemic therapy (oral anticancer agent or immunotherapy from 2 months before to 1 year after diagnosis of mRCC) as a function of patient and area-level characteristics. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for patient factors, and odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression and relative risk ratios (RRRs) from multinomial logistic regression are reported. Results: The sample included 15 407 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.8] years), of whom 9360 (60.8%) were men; 6931 (45.0%), older than 75 years; 93 (0.6%), American Indian or Alaska Native; 257 (1.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 757 (4.9%), Hispanic; 1017 (6.6%), non-Hispanic Black; 12 966 (84.2%), non-Hispanic White; 121 (0.8%), other; and 196 (1.3%), unknown. Overall, 8317 patients (54.0%) received some type of systemic therapy. After adjusting for individual factors, no county or zip code-level measures of social vulnerability, deprivation, or segregation were associated with disparities in treatment. In contrast, patient-level factors, including female sex (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84) and LIS (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), were associated with lack of treatment, with particularly limited access to immunotherapy for patients with LIS (RRR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.43). Associations between individual-level factors and treatment in multivariable analysis were not mediated by the addition of area-level metrics. Disparities by race and ethnicity were consistently and only observed within the most vulnerable areas, as indicated by the top quartile of each vulnerability deprivation index. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older Medicare patients diagnosed with mRCC, individual-level demographics, including race and ethnicity, sex, and income, were associated with receipt of systemic therapy, whereas area-level measures were not. However, individual-level racial and ethnic disparities were largely limited to socially vulnerable areas, suggesting that efforts to improve racial and ethnic disparities may be most effective when targeted to socially vulnerable areas.

Updated Analysis of Comparative Toxicity of Proton and Photon Radiation for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Previous comparative effectiveness studies have not demonstrated a benefit of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. An updated comparison of GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is needed. METHODS: We investigated the SEER-Medicare linked database, identifying patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Procedure and diagnosis codes indicative of treatment-related toxicity were identified. As a sensitivity analysis, we also identified toxicity based only on procedure codes. Patients who underwent IMRT and PBT were matched 2:1 on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We then compared GI and GU toxicity at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. RESULTS: The final sample included 772 PBT patients matched to 1,544 IMRT patients. The frequency of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.5% versus 2.5% at 6 months (P = .18), 9.5% versus 10.2% at 12 months (P = .18), and 20.5% versus 23.4% at 24 months (P = .11). The frequency of only procedure codes indicative of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was too low to be reported and not significantly different. The frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 6.8% versus 5.7% (P = .30), 14.3% versus 12.2% (P = .13), and 28.2% versus 25.8% (P = .21) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. When looking only at procedure codes, the frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT was 1.0% at 6 months, whereas it was too infrequent to report for PBT (P = .64). GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7% versus 6.7% (P = .10) at 12 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, there were no statistically significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Integrating 4 methods to evaluate physical function in patients with cancer (In4M): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate, patient-centred evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterise the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported outcome, patient-reported ported outcome (PRO), performance outcome tests and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English-speaking and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multimodal physical function data collection in real-world patients with breast cancer or lymphoma will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform and PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University and the US Food and Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05214144; Pre-results.

Trends in new and persistent opioid use in older adults with and without cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use on patients with cancer remains undefined. Our objective was to determine trends in new and additional opioid use in patients with and without cancer. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program-Medicare for opioid-naive patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017 and a random sample of patients without cancer. We identified 238 470 eligible patients with cancer and further focused on 4 clinical strata: patients without cancer, patients with metastatic cancer, patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery alone ("surgery alone"), and patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy or radiation therapy ("surgery+"). We identified new, early additional, and long-term additional opioid use and calculated the change in predicted probability of these outcomes from 2012 to 2017. RESULTS: New opioid use was higher in patients with cancer (46.4%) than in those without (6.9%) (P < .001). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use was more stable in the cancer strata (relative declines: 0.1% surgery alone; 2.4% surgery+; 8.8% metastatic cancer), than in the noncancer stratum (20.0%) (P < .001 for each cancer to noncancer comparison). Early additional use declined among surgery patients (‒14.9% and ‒17.5% for surgery alone and surgery+, respectively) but was stable among patients with metastatic disease (‒2.8%, P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid prescribing declined over time at a slower rate in patients with cancer than in patients without cancer. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.

Falls prechemotherapy and toxicity-related hospitalization during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in older women: Results from the prospective multicenter HOPE trial.

BACKGROUND: Older women with breast cancer frequently experience toxicity-related hospitalizations during adjuvant chemotherapy. Although the geriatric assessment can identify those at risk, its use in clinic remains limited. One simple, low-cost marker of vulnerability in older persons is fall history. Here, the authors examined whether falls prechemotherapy can identify older women at risk for toxicity-related hospitalization during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: In a prospective study of women >65 years old with stage I-III breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, the authors assessed baseline falls in the past 6 months as a categorical variable: no fall, one fall, and more than one fall. The primary end point was incident hospitalization during chemotherapy attributable to toxicity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between falls and toxicity-related hospitalization, adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric covariates. RESULTS: Of the 497 participants, 60 (12.1%) reported falling before chemotherapy, and 114 (22.9%) had one or more toxicity-related hospitalizations. After adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric characteristics, women who fell more than once within 6 months before chemotherapy had greater odds of being hospitalized from toxicity during chemotherapy compared to women who did not fall (50.0% vs. 20.8% experienced toxicity-related hospitalization, odds ratio, 4.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-11.54, p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of older women with early breast cancer, women who experienced more than one fall before chemotherapy had an over 4-fold increased risk of toxicity-related hospitalization during chemotherapy, independent of sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric factors.

Incarceration and screen-detectable cancer diagnosis among adults in Connecticut.

Although incarcerated adults are at elevated risk of dying from cancer, little is known about cancer screening in carceral settings. This study compared stage-specific incidence of screen-detectable cancers among incarcerated and recently released people with the general population, as a reflection of screening practices. We calculated the age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for early- and late-stage cancers for incarcerated and recently released adults compared to the general Connecticut population between 2005 and 2016. Our sample included 143 cancer cases among those incarcerated, 406 among those recently released, and 201 360 in the general population. The SIR for early-stage screen-detectable cancers was lower among incarcerated (SIR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.43) and recently released (SIR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.88) individuals than the general population. Incidence of late-stage screen-detectable cancer was lower during incarceration (SIR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.88) but not after release (SIR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.82). Findings suggest that underscreening and underdetection of cancer may occur in carceral settings.

Estimating Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis After Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening, particularly for older women. OBJECTIVE: To estimate overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women by age. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing the cumulative incidence of breast cancer among older women who continued screening in the next interval with those who did not. Analyses used competing risk models, stratified by age. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare claims, linked to the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program. PATIENTS: Women 70 years and older who had been recently screened. MEASUREMENTS: Breast cancer diagnoses and breast cancer death for up to 15 years of follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 54 635 women. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases (95% CI, 5.7 to 6.4) per 100 screened women versus 4.2 cases (CI, 3.5 to 5.0) per 100 unscreened women. An estimated 31% of breast cancer among screened women were potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 75 to 84 years, cumulative incidence was 4.9 (CI, 4.6 to 5.2) per 100 screened women versus 2.6 (CI, 2.2 to 3.0) per 100 unscreened women, with 47% of cases potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 85 and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 (CI, 2.3 to 3.4) among screened women versus 1.3 (CI, 0.9 to 1.9) among those not, with up to 54% overdiagnosis. We did not see statistically significant reductions in breast cancer-specific death associated with screening. LIMITATIONS: This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, limiting our ability to draw conclusions on all benefits and harms of screening. Unmeasured differences in risk for breast cancer and differential competing mortality between screened and unscreened women may confound results. Results were sensitive to model specifications and definition of a screening mammogram. CONCLUSION: Continued breast cancer screening was associated with greater incidence of breast cancer, suggesting overdiagnosis may be common among older women who are diagnosed with breast cancer after screening. Whether harms of overdiagnosis are balanced by benefits and for whom remains an important question. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Clinical trial data sharing: a cross-sectional study of outcomes associated with two U.S. National Institutes of Health models.

The impact and effectiveness of clinical trial data sharing initiatives may differ depending on the data sharing model used. We characterized outcomes associated with models previously used by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH): National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) centralized model and National Cancer Institute's (NCI) decentralized model. We identified trials completed in 2010-2013 that met NIH data sharing criteria and matched studies based on cost and/or size, determining whether trial data were shared, and for those that were, the frequency of secondary internal publications (authored by at least one author from the original research team) and shared data publications (authored by a team external to the original research team). We matched 77 NHLBI-funded trials to 77 NCI-funded trials; among these, 20 NHLBI-sponsored trials (26%) and 4 NCI-sponsored trials (5%) shared data (OR 6.4, 95% CI: 2.1, 19.8). From the 4 NCI-sponsored trials sharing data, we identified 65 secondary internal and 2 shared data publications. From the 20 NHLBI-sponsored trials sharing data, we identified 188 secondary internal and 53 shared data publications. The NHLBI's centralized data sharing model was associated with more trials sharing data and more shared data publications when compared with the NCI's decentralized model.

Current use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator in academic surgery: a mixed-methods study.

Background: This study aims to quantitatively assess use of the NSQIP surgical risk calculator (NSRC) in contemporary surgical practice and to identify barriers to use and potential interventions that might increase use. Materials and methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of surgeons at seven institutions. The primary outcomes were self-reported application of the calculator in general clinical practice and specific clinical scenarios as well as reported barriers to use. Results: In our sample of 99 surgeons (49.7% response rate), 73.7% reported use of the NSRC in the past month. Approximately half (51.9%) of respondents reported infrequent NSRC use (<20% of preoperative discussions), while 14.3% used it in ≥40% of preoperative assessments. Reported use was higher in nonelective cases (30.2% vs 11.1%) and in patients who were ≥65 years old (37.1% vs 13.0%), functionally dependent (41.2% vs 6.6%), or with surrogate consent (39.9% vs 20.4%). NSRC use was not associated with training status or years in practice. Respondents identified a lack of influence on the decision to pursue surgery as well as concerns regarding the calculator's accuracy as barriers to use. Surgeons suggested improving integration to workflow and better education as strategies to increase NSRC use. Conclusions: Many surgeons reported use of the NSRC, but few used it frequently. Surgeons reported more frequent use in nonelective cases and frail patients, suggesting the calculator is of greater utility for high-risk patients. Surgeons raised concerns about perceived accuracy and suggested additional education as well as integration of the calculator into the electronic health record.