Overtreatment and Undertreatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Older Women: Evaluating the POWER Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy (RT) omission is acceptable in older women with early-stage estrogen receptor + breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). However, RT rates in this population remain high, causing concern for overtreatment. Conversely, patients who omit RT and do not complete a course of AET are at risk of undertreatment. In the Pre-Operative Window of Endocrine Therapy to Inform Radiation Therapy Decisions (POWER) trial, participants receive 90 days of preoperative endocrine therapy to assess tolerance before deciding about RT. This study aimed to determine the rates of undertreatment and overtreatment institutionally and among POWER trial participants. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from medical records of women aged ≥ 65 years diagnosed with invasive, estrogen receptor +/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- breast cancer, ≤ 3 cm, who had BCS between 2012 and 2022. Patients were categorized as undertreated (BCS alone), overtreated (BCS + RT + AET), or appropriately treated (BCS + RT or BCS + AET). RESULTS: The cohort included 478 patients, of whom 62 (12.97%) were undertreated, 202 (42.26%) were overtreated, and 214 (44.77%) were appropriately treated. Appropriately treated patients were more likely to be aged 70-79 years (P < 0.0001) and have high health literacy (P = 0.0003). Of the 37 patients (7.71%) in the POWER trial, more were appropriately treated than patients not in the POWER trial (81.1% versus 44.8%) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite long-standing guideline changes, RT utilization remains high. This study highlights how a novel patient-centered approach to guide adjuvant therapy decisions may increase the number of appropriately treated patients.

Factorial Trial to Optimize an Internet-Delivered Intervention for Sexual Health After Breast Cancer: Protocol for the WF-2202 Sexual Health and Intimacy Enhancement (SHINE) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although most survivors of breast cancer report substantial sexual concerns following treatment, few receive support for these concerns. Delivering sexual health care to survivors of breast cancer via the internet could overcome many of the barriers to in-person treatment. Even when delivered remotely, survivor time constraints remain a leading barrier to sexual health intervention uptake. OBJECTIVE: Guided by the multiphase optimization strategy methodological framework, the primary objective of this study is to identify the most efficient internet-delivered sexual health intervention package that is expected to provide survivors of breast cancer the greatest benefit with the fewest (and least-intensive) intervention components. This study aims to determine how intervention components work (mediators) and for whom they work best (moderators). METHODS: Partnered, posttreatment adult female survivors of breast cancer (N=320) experiencing at least 1 bothersome sexual symptom (ie, pain with sex, vaginal dryness, low sexual desire, and difficulty with orgasm) related to their breast cancer treatment will be enrolled. Clinic-based recruitment will be conducted via the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base. Participants will be randomly assigned to 1 of 16 combinations of four intervention components with two levels each in this factorial trial: (1) psychoeducation about cancer-related sexual morbidity (receive either enhanced vs standard versions); (2) communication skills training for discussing concerns with health care providers (received vs not received); (3) communication skills training for discussing concerns with a partner (received vs not received); and (4) intimacy promotion skills training (received vs not received). Cores will be fully automated and implemented using a robust internet intervention platform with highly engaging elements such as animation, video, and automated email prompts. Survivors will complete web-based assessments at baseline (prerandomization time point) and again at 12 and 24 weeks later. The primary study aim will be achieved through a decision-making process based on systematically evaluating the main and interaction effects of components on sexual distress (Female Sexual Distress Scale-Desire, Arousal, Orgasm) and sexual functioning (Female Sexual Function Index) using a generalized linear model approach to ANOVA with effect coding. Mediation analyses will be conducted through a structural equation modeling approach, and moderation analyses will be conducted by extending the generalized linear model to include interaction effects. RESULTS: This protocol has been reviewed and approved by the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board. Data collection is planned to begin in March 2024 and conclude in 2027. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying the combination of the fewest and least-intensive intervention components likely to provide survivors of breast cancer the greatest sexual health benefit, this study will result in the first internet intervention that is optimized for maximum impact on the undertreated, prevalent, and distressing problem of breast cancer-related sexual morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06216574; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06216574. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/57781.

Surgical Perspectives on the Updated ASTRO Guideline on Partial Breast Irradiation for Breast Cancer.

This is an executive summary of the most recent American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines on use of partial breast irradiation in early-stage breast cancer.In the conscientious pursuit of "right-sizing" the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer, there has been an emphasis on judicious de-escalation of therapy. A component of this paradigm shift is partial breast irradiation (PBI), an approach characterized by targeted radiation therapy (RT) to lumpectomy cavity margins rather than to the whole breast (i.e., whole breast irradiation [WBI]) after breast conservation surgery (BCS). The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently completed a revision of its evidence-based guidelines for the application of PBI.1To accomplish this, recent PBI data were reviewed by panel members, including representatives of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), in collaboration with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO), which provided representatives and peer reviewers. The guideline was approved by the ASTRO Board of Directors and endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.The recommendations focused on indications for PBI as an alternative to WBI and technical considerations specific to PBI. This editorial provides a summary and comments on the updated ASTRO PBI guidelines, offering insights into the implications of these findings for clinical practice and multidisciplinary decision-making while underscoring technical considerations for optimal incorporation of PBI into patient care.

Physicians are Unable to Consistently Predict Patient Health Literacy in a Breast Clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Health literacy (HL) is a patient's capacity to understand health information. Low HL is associated with worse cancer outcomes and adherence to treatment regimens. This study aimed to test physicians' ability to predict their patients' HL after an initial consultation to determine if routine HL screening is valuable. METHODS: From February 2023 through June 2023, patients seen at an academic breast clinic completed a validated, self-reported HL assessment. Surgical and medical oncologists estimated their patients' HL by answering the same HL questionnaire based on their perception of the patient visit. Patient and physician scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient. Linear regression was used to evaluate associations between physicians' ability to predict HL and other variables. RESULTS: The cohort included 210 patient HL scores with corresponding physician scores for each. Most patients (75.7%) had adequate HL. There was moderate agreement between the patient and physician HL scores (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.677, P < 0.01), meaning physicians could somewhat predict their patient's HL. Physicians were worse at predicting HL when patients had low HL. There was no difference in physicians' ability to predict HL based on patient age (P = 0.09) or race (P = 0.29). Additionally, we found no difference in the ability to predict HL based on the physician's specialty (P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: After an initial consultation, physicians cannot accurately predict patient HL, particularly in patients with lower HL. Given the impact of low HL on a patient's ability to make treatment decisions and adhere to treatment plans, using a validated tool to measure HL is necessary.

Patient-derived response estimates from zero-passage organoids of luminal breast cancer.

Background: Primary luminal breast cancer cells lose their identity rapidly in standard tissue culture, which is problematic for testing hormone interventions and molecular pathways specific to the luminal subtype. Breast cancer organoids are thought to retain tumor characteristics better, but long-term viability of luminal-subtype cases is a persistent challenge. Our goal was to adapt short-term organoids of luminal breast cancer for parallel testing of genetic and pharmacologic perturbations. Methods: We freshly isolated patient-derived cells from luminal tumor scrapes, miniaturized the organoid format into 5 µl replicates for increased throughput, and set an endpoint of 14 days to minimize drift. Therapeutic hormone targeting was mimicked in these "zero-passage" organoids by withdrawing ß-estradiol and adding 4-hydroxytamoxifen. We also examined sulforaphane as an electrophilic stress and commercial neutraceutical with reported anti-cancer properties. Downstream mechanisms were tested genetically by lentiviral transduction of two complementary sgRNAs and Cas9 stabilization for the first week of organoid culture. Transcriptional changes were measured by RT-qPCR or RNA sequencing, and organoid phenotypes were quantified by serial brightfield imaging, digital image segmentation, and regression modeling of cellular doubling times. Results: We achieved >50% success in initiating luminal breast cancer organoids from tumor scrapes and maintaining them to the 14-day zero-passage endpoint. Success was mostly independent of clinical parameters, supporting general applicability of the approach. Abundance of ESR1 and PGR in zero-passage organoids consistently remained within the range of patient variability at the endpoint. However, responsiveness to hormone withdrawal and blockade was highly variable among luminal breast cancer cases tested. Combining sulforaphane with knockout of NQO1 (a phase II antioxidant response gene and downstream effector of sulforaphane) also yielded a breadth of organoid growth phenotypes, including growth inhibition with sulforaphane, growth promotion with NQO1 knockout, and growth antagonism when combined. Conclusions: Zero-passage organoids are a rapid and scalable way to interrogate properties of luminal breast cancer cells from patient-derived material. This includes testing drug mechanisms of action in different clinical cohorts. A future goal is to relate inter-patient variability of zero-passage organoids to long-term outcomes.

Are There Disparities in Breast Reconstruction After Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy?

INTRODUCTION: Despite national guidelines against contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in low- to moderate-risk breast cancer, CPM use continues to rise. Breast reconstruction improves health-related quality of life and satisfaction among women undergoing mastectomy. Given the lack of data regarding factors associated with reconstruction after CPM and the known benefits of reconstruction, we sought to investigate whether disparities exist in receipt of reconstruction after CPM. METHODS: The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent unilateral mastectomy with CPM. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent planned reconstruction at any timepoint and those who did not. A secondary analysis comparing types of reconstruction (tissue, implant, combined) was conducted. Patient, tumor, and demographic characteristics were analyzed using chi-square test and odds ratios were calculated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,73,249 women: 95,818 (55.3%) underwent reconstruction and 77,431 (45.7%) did not. Both the rate CPM and the proportion of women undergoing reconstruction after CPM increased between 2004 and 2017. Of the women who had reconstruction, 40,840 (51.7%) received implants, 29,807 (37.7%) had tissue, and 8352 (10.6%) had combined reconstruction. After adjusted analysis, factors associated with reconstruction were young age, Hispanic ethnicity, private insurance, and living in an area with the highest education and median income (P < 0.01). Patients who underwent reconstruction were less likely to have radiation (P < 0.01) and chemotherapy (P < 0.01), more likely to have stage I disease (P < 0.01), and to be treated at an integrated cancer center (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction after CPM is disproportionately received by younger women, Hispanics, those with private insurance, and higher socioeconomic status and education. While the rate of reconstruction after CPM is increasing, there remain significant disparities. Conscious efforts must be made to eliminate these disparities, especially given the known benefits of reconstruction after mastectomy.

Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Working Group Statement on Contralateral Mastectomy: Indications, Outcomes, and Risks.

Rates of contralateral mastectomy (CM) among patients with unilateral breast cancer have been increasing in the United States. In this Society of Surgical Oncology position statement, we review the literature addressing the indications, risks, and benefits of CM since the society's 2017 statement. We held a virtual meeting to outline key topics and then conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify relevant articles. We reviewed the articles and made recommendations based on group consensus. Patients consider CM for many reasons, including concerns regarding the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), desire for improved cosmesis and symmetry, and preferences to avoid ongoing screening, whereas surgeons primarily consider CBC risk when making a recommendation for CM. For patients with a high risk of CBC, CM reduces the risk of new breast cancer, however it is not known to convey an overall survival benefit. Studies evaluating patient satisfaction with CM and reconstruction have yielded mixed results. Imaging with mammography within 12 months before CM is recommended, but routine preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging is not; there is also no evidence to support routine postmastectomy imaging surveillance. Because the likelihood of identifying an occult malignancy during CM is low, routine sentinel lymph node surgery is not recommended. Data on the rates of postoperative complications are conflicting, and such complications may not be directly related to CM. Adjuvant therapy delays due to complications have not been reported. Surgeons can reduce CM rates by encouraging shared decision making and informed discussions incorporating patient preferences.

Novel Form of Breast Intraoperative Radiation Therapy with CT-Guided High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy: Interim Results of a Prospective Phase-II Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Precision breast intraoperative radiation therapy (PB-IORT) is a novel method of IORT that uses customized CT-based treatment plans and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. We conducted a phase-II multi-institution trial to evaluate the efficacy of PB-IORT. STUDY DESIGN: Between 2015 and 2022, 3 centers enrolled women aged 45 years and older with invasive or in situ carcinoma measuring 3 cm or smaller and N0 status (n = 358). Breast-conserving surgery was performed, and a multilumen balloon catheter was placed in the lumpectomy bed. CT images were used to create customized HDR brachytherapy plans that delivered 12.5 Gy to the tumor bed. The primary outcome assessed was the 5-year rate of index quadrant tumor recurrence. An interim analysis was conducted after one-third of eligible participants completed 5 years of follow-up. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02400658). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 153 participants with a median age of 64 years and median follow-up time of 5.9 years. The estimated 5-year index quadrant tumor recurrence rate and overall survival were 5.08% (95% CI 2.23 to 9.68) and 95.1%, respectively. Locoregional (ipsilateral breast and axilla) and distant recurrence rates were each 1.96%. Seven deaths occurred during the first 5 years of follow-up, with only 1 attributable to breast cancer. Overall, 68.6% of patients experienced any adverse effects, and 4 cases of breast-related severe toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the results of a planned interim analysis of a phase-II trial investigating PB-IORT and demonstrates the efficacy and safety of single-fraction, CT-based, HDR brachytherapy after breast-conserving surgery. These findings provide valuable insights into the use of PB-IORT as a treatment modality.

The POWER-PAK Score Characterizes Tumor Response to 3 Months of Preoperative Endocrine Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Pre-Operative Window of Endocrine Therapy to Inform Radiation Therapy Decisions (POWER, NCT04272801) trial aims to determine whether 3 months of preoperative endocrine therapy (pre-ET) informs adjuvant radiation therapy decisions among older women with early stage, ER-positive breast cancer. We propose the POWER Pathologic Assessment and Ki-67 (POWER-PAK) scoring system to characterize the histologic effects of pre-ET. METHODS: Histologic evaluation was performed on core biopsy and lumpectomy specimens from 37 POWER trial participants who completed pre-ET and surgery. The POWER-PAK score consists of tumor regression, decrease in Ki-67 expression, and ER expression, each ranging from 0 to 2. Scores were aggregated to create the POWER-PAK score with a range from 0 to 6. Participants with no residual tumor were labelled 6-NRT. RESULTS: ER expression did not decrease after pre-ET. Ki-67 decreased from 13% in biopsy specimens to 5% in the lumpectomy specimens (p < 0.001). Cellularity decreased from 40% to 23% (p < 0.001). There was heterogeneity of POWER-PAK scores ranging from 2 to 6-NRT: score of 2, n = 2 (5.4%); 4, n = 8 (21.6%); 5, n = 4 (10.8%); 6, n = 16 (43.2%); and 6-NRT, n = 7 (18.9%). Participants with a score ≥ 5 were more likely to have smaller tumors after pre-ET compared with those with a score < 5 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The tumor responses following treatment with pre-ET are heterogenous. We propose that the POWER-PAK scoring system can be used to quantify response to pre-ET. Future studies will explore the use of POWER-PAK to support informed decision-making for adjuvant therapy options for older women with early stage breast cancer.

Cancer Screening and Treatment Delays During the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Role of Health Literacy in Care Re-engagement: Findings from an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center sample.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to numerous delays in cancer-related care and cancer-specific screening, but the extent is not fully understood. For those that experience a delay or disruption in care, health related self-management is required to re-engage in care pathways and the role of health literacy in this pathway has not been explored. The purpose of this analysis is to (1) report the frequency of self-reported delays in cancer treatment and preventative screening services at an academic, NCI-designated center during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) investigate cancer-related care and screening delays among those with adequate and limited health literacy. A cross-sectional survey was administered from an NCI-designated Cancer Center with a rural catchment area during November 2020 through March 2021. A total of 1,533 participants completed the survey, and nearly 19 percent of participants were categorized as having limited health literacy. Twenty percent of those with a cancer diagnosis reported a delay in cancer-related care; and 23-30% of the sample reported a delay in cancer screening. In general, the proportions of delays among those with adequate and limited health literacy were similar with the exception of colorectal cancer screening. There was also a notable difference in the ability to re-engage in cervical cancer screening among those with adequate and limited health literacy. Thus, there is a role for those engaged in cancer-related education and outreach to offer additional navigation resources for those at risk to cancer-related care and screening disruptions. Future study is warranted to investigate the role of health literacy on cancer care engagement.

Long-Term Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Following Various Radiotherapy Modalities in Early Stage Hormone Receptor Positive Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the rates of long-term adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) adherence after various radiation therapy (RT) modalities among patients with early stage breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records from patients with stage 0, I, or IIA (tumors ≤3 cm), hormone receptor (HR) positive breast cancer that received adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) from 2013 to 2015 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received breast conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant RT via one of the following modalities: whole breast radiotherapy (WBI), partial breast irradiation (PBI) with either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or fractionated intracavitary high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, or single fraction HDR-brachytherapy intraoperative-radiation therapy (IORT). RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients were reviewed. Thirty patients received WBI, 41 PBI, and 43 IORT with a median follow up of 64.2, 72.0, and 58.6 months, respectively. For the entire cohort, AET adherence was approximately 64% at 2 years and 56% at 5 years. Among patients in the IORT clinical trial, adherence to AET was approximately 51% at 2 years and 40% at 5 years. After controlling for additional factors, DCIS histology (vs invasive disease) and IORT (compared to other radiation modalities) were associated with decreased endocrine therapy adherence (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: DCIS histology and receipt of IORT were associated with lower rates of adherence to AET at 5 years. Our findings suggest that examination of the efficacy of RT interventions such as PBI and IORT in patients who do not receive AET is warranted.

Clinical Trials in Breast Cancer: Practice Changing, Landmark with a Focus on More Current Trials.

Randomized clinical trials have been essential in guiding the surgical and systemic treatment of breast cancer, with most focusing on de-escalation. Here, we discuss key clinical trials that have shaped the modern approach to the treatment of breast cancer, focusing on studies that are more recent.

Factors Associated With Cosmetic Outcomes After Treatment With a Novel Form of Breast Intraoperative Radiation Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Precision breast intraoperative radiation therapy (PB-IORT) incorporates computed tomography-guided treatment planning and high dose rate brachytherapy to deliver a single dose of highly conformal radiational therapy. The purpose of this study is to determine factors associated with poor cosmetic outcomes after treatment with PB-IORT. METHODS: The study included all consecutive participants enrolled in an ongoing phase II clinical trial that had completed a minimum of 12 mo of follow-up. A poor cosmetic outcome was defined as scoring "fair" or "poor" on the Harvard Cosmesis evaluation, or "some" or "very much" on any of the three general cosmesis categories. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing R. RESULTS: The final cohort included 201 participants, of which 181 (90%) had an overall good/excellent cosmetic outcome. Group 1 consisted of 162 (81%) participants who reported only excellent/good cosmetic outcomes. Group 2 consisted of 39 (19%) participants who reported some aspect of a poor cosmetic outcome. On multivariable analysis, participants with ductal carcinoma in situ were significantly more likely to experience a poor cosmetic outcome (odds ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.03-5.82, P = 0.04), and those who received subsequent whole breast irradiation were also more likely to have a poor cosmetic outcome (odds ratio 10.20, 95% confidence interval CI 1.04-99.95, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with need for further radiation after PB-IORT are at increased risk for a poor cosmetic outcome. Larger balloon volume and distance between the skin do not have deleterious effects on cosmetic outcomes.

A comparative study using time-driven activity-based costing in single-fraction breast high-dose rate brachytherapy: An integrated brachytherapy suite vs. decentralized workflow.

INTRODUCTION: Precision breast intraoperative radiation therapy (PB-IORT) is a novel approach to adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer performed as part of a phase II clinical trial at two institutions. One institution performs the entire procedure in an integrated brachytherapy suite which contains a CT-on-rails imaging unit and full anesthesia capabilities. At the other, breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy take place in two separate locations. Here, we utilize time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare these two models for the delivery of PB-IORT. METHODS: Process maps were created to describe each step required to deliver PB-IORT at each institution, including personnel, equipment, and supplies. Time investment was estimated for each step. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource, and total costs of care were then calculated by multiplying the capacity cost rates by the time estimate for the process step and adding any additional product costs. RESULTS: PB-IORT costs less to deliver at a distributed facility, as is more commonly available, than an integrated brachytherapy suite ($3,262.22 vs. $3,996.01). The largest source of costs in both settings ($2,400) was consumable supplies, including the brachytherapy balloon applicator. The difference in costs for the two facility types was driven by personnel costs ($1,263.41 vs. $764.89). In the integrated facility, increased time required by radiation oncology nursing and the anesthesia attending translated to the greatest increases in cost. Equipment costs were also slightly higher in the integrated suite setting ($332.60 vs. $97.33). CONCLUSIONS: The overall cost of care is higher when utilizing an integrated brachytherapy suite to deliver PB-IORT. This was primarily driven by additional personnel costs from nursing and anesthesia, although the greatest cost of delivery in both settings was the disposable brachytherapy applicator. These differences in cost must be balanced against the potential impact on patient experience with these approaches.

Effects of a novel form of intraoperative radiation therapy on quality of life among patients with early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate patient-perceived quality of life (QOL) among patients treated with a novel form of breast intraoperative radiation therapy (PB-IORT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with PB-IORT as part of a phase II clinical trial from 2013 to 2020 were identified. Patients were given the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) encompassing global health, functionality, and symptomatology at baseline, 1-month, 6-months, 12-months, and 24-months after PB-IORT. Scores were on a 100-point scale with change greater than 10 considered clinically significant. Scores at interval follow-up were compared to baseline using repeated measure modeling with an unstructured covariance matrix. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 303 patients, a majority of which were White (84.2%) with a median age of 64 years (IQR: 52, 76). One month after PB-IORT, a decline from baseline in physical (-2.5, 95% CI: -4.4 - -0.55, p = 0.01), role (-7.6, 95% CI: -11.7 - -3.5, p < 0.001), and social functioning (-3.0, 95% CI: -5.5 - -0.42, p = 0.02) were observed, which correlated with increased fatigue (8.4, 95% CI: 5.5-11.3, p < 0.001). At 6 months, nearly all QOL measures returned to baseline or improved. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences from baseline in overall global health. All functional and symptom scale differences were less than 10, indicating minimal clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: PB-IORT has minimal negative impact on QOL, further supporting this patient-centered treatment approach for early-stage breast cancer.

Including partners in discussions of sexual side effects from breast cancer: a qualitative study of survivors, partners, and providers.

PURPOSE: Ensuring there are clear standards for addressing cancer-related sexual side effects is important. Currently, there are differences in two leading sets of clinical guidelines regarding the inclusion of survivors' romantic partners into clinical discussions between survivors and their providers about this issue. To help refine guidelines, we examine breast cancer survivor, partner, and oncology provider perspectives about including partners in discussions about cancer-related sexual side effects in a secondary analysis of a broader qualitative study. METHODS: Partnered female breast cancer survivors (N = 29) completed online surveys, and intimate partners of breast cancer survivors (N = 12) and breast oncology providers (N = 8) completed semi-structured interviews. Themes were derived from thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Among survivors who reported a discussion with their provider, fewer than half indicated their partner had been present, despite most survivors expressing it was - or would have been - helpful to include their partner. Partners also largely indicated being included was or would have been helpful, when welcomed by the survivor. Providers similarly emphasized the importance of survivors' autonomy in deciding whether to discuss sexual concerns in the presence of a partner. CONCLUSIONS: Partners were infrequently included in conversations about cancer-related sexual side effects, even though survivors, partners, and providers alike expressed value in these discussions occurring with the couple together - when that is the survivor's preference. Findings suggest future clinical guidelines should emphasize that incorporating partners into clinical discussions about sexual concerns is important for many breast cancer patients. Soliciting and enacting patients' preferences is essential for truly patient-centered care.

Disparities in telemedicine utilization among surgical patients during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been rapidly adopted in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is limited work surrounding demographic and socioeconomic disparities that may exist in telemedicine utilization. This study aimed to examine demographic and socioeconomic differences in surgical patient telemedicine usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Department of Surgery outpatients seen from July 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 were stratified into three visit groups: pre-COVID-19 in-person, COVID-19 in-person, or COVID-19 telemedicine. Generalized linear models were used to examine associations of sex, race/ethnicity, Distressed Communities Index (DCI) scores, MyChart activation, and insurance status with telemedicine usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 14,792 patients (median age 60, female [57.0%], non-Hispanic White [76.4%]) contributed to 21,980 visits. Compared to visits before the pandemic, telemedicine visits during COVID-19 were more likely to be with patients from the least socioeconomically distressed communities (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08,1.58; P = 0.005), with an activated MyChart (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64; P < .001), and with non-government or commercial insurance (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.84-2.94; P < .001). Adjusted comparison of telemedicine visits to in person visits during COVID-19 revealed telemedicine users were more likely to be female (OR, 1.38, 95% CI, 1.10-1.73; P = 0.005) and pay with non-government or commercial insurance (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.85-4.16; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: During the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine was more likely utilized by female patients and those without government or commercial insurance compared to patients who used in-person visits. Interventions using telemedicine to improve health care access might consider such differences in utilization.

Addressing sexual concerns of female breast cancer survivors and partners: a qualitative study of survivors, partners, and oncology providers about Internet intervention preferences.

PURPOSE: Sexual side effects after breast cancer treatment are common and distressing to both survivors and their intimate partners, yet few receive interventions to address cancer-related sexual concerns. To direct intervention development, this qualitative study assessed the perceptions of female breast cancer survivors, intimate partners of breast cancer survivors, and breast cancer oncology providers about how an Internet intervention for couples may address breast cancer-related sexual concerns. METHODS: Survivors (N = 20) responded to online open-ended surveys. Partners (N = 12) and providers (N = 8) completed individual semi-structured interviews. Data were inductively coded using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Three primary intervention content areas were identified by the key stakeholder groups: (1) information about and strategies to manage physical and psychological effects of cancer treatment on sexual health, (2) relationship and communication support, and (3) addressing bodily changes and self-image after treatment. Survivors and partners tended to express interest in some individualized intervention private from their partner, although they also emphasized the importance of opening communication about sexual concerns within the couple. Survivors and partners expressed interest in an intervention that addresses changing needs across the cancer trajectory, available from the time of diagnosis and through survivorship. CONCLUSION: Internet intervention for couples to address cancer-related sexual concerns, particularly one that provides basic education about treatment side effects and that evolves with couples' changing needs across the cancer trajectory, was perceived as a valuable addition to breast cancer care by survivors, partners, and providers.