Improving Breast Ultrasound Interpretation in Uganda Using a Condensed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether a 2-day educational course using a condensed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (condensed BI-RADS) improved the accuracy of Ugandan healthcare workers interpreting breast ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The target audience of this intervention was Ugandan healthcare workers involved in performing, interpreting, or acting on the results of breast ultrasound. The educational course consisted of a pretest knowledge assessment, a series of lectures on breast imaging interpretation and standardized reporting using a condensed BI-RADS, and a posttest knowledge assessment. Participants interpreted 53 different ultrasound test cases by selecting the finding type, descriptors for masses, and recommendations. We compared the percent correct on the pretest and posttest based on occupation and training level. RESULTS: Sixty-one Ugandan healthcare workers participated in this study, including 13 radiologists, 13 other physicians, 12 technologists, and 23 midlevel providers. Most groups improved in identifying the finding type (P < 0.05). All occupations showed improved use of descriptive terms for the shape and internal echogenicity of masses (P < 0.05). Most groups showed significant improvement in recommendations for normal and benign findings with a corresponding reduction in biopsy recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted breast ultrasound education using a condensed BI-RADS improved the interpretive performance of healthcare workers and was particularly successful in reducing the frequency of unnecessary biopsies for normal and benign findings. Multimodal educational efforts to improve accuracy and management of breast ultrasound findings may augment breast cancer early detection efforts in resource-limited settings.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS: Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Measuring cancer clinical trial understanding.

Researchers, practitioners, and participants in cancer clinical trials must have a clear understanding of clinical trials if participation in them is to be solicited ethically and effectively. A valid and reliable measure of cancer clinical trial understanding did not exist prior to a 2005 study conducted for the Coalition of Cooperative Cancer Groups. This report outlines a measure derived from that study, discusses the rationale for its component items, examines its psychometric properties, and demonstrates the relationship of this measure to the enrollment decision. Data from national samples of cancer survivors and the general public demonstrate the measure's validity and reliability. Results are discussed as they relate to patient understanding of clinical trials, informed decision making, and health communication processes.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes by age in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sufficient data are currently unavailable to assist in defining suitable regimens for patients ≥ 70 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1; the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) on day 1; or paclitaxel 225mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were every 21 days up to 6. Efficacy and toxicity results were compared by age groups. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) between patients <70 years (8.6 months, 95% CI: 7.9, 9.5) and ≥ 70 years (7.9 months, 95% CI: 7.1, 9.5) was similar. OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 10.3) among patients 70-74 years, 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6, 9.3) among patients 75-79 years, and 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.3, 10.3) among patients ≥ 80 years. OS was lower among patients 75-79 years compared with patients 70-74 years (P=0.04). Compared with patients <70 years, patients ≥ 70 years experienced similar rates of myelosuppresion, but younger patients experienced more vomiting and nausea. There was no clear pattern with respect to differences in efficacy by treatments across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the similarity of patient outcomes across age groups, doublet chemotherapy is feasible among carefully selected elderly patients with good PS.

A Comparison of white and African American outcomes from a three-arm, randomized, phase III multicenter trial of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of race on the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy doublet regimens in African American patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1; arm B: the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1; or arm C: paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 on day 1 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6. A site selection tool identified institutions with potential to recruit a minority population. Outcome and toxicity data of white and African American patients were compared. RESULTS: Of 1135 total patients, 972 were white (85.6%) and 138 were African American (12.2%). Median survival was 8.3 months for white patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-9.3) and 9.1 months for African American patients (95% CI: 8.2-11.1). Response rates were 29.1 and 29.0%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 or 4 toxicities were comparable. Among African Americans, median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.1-10.1) for gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 47), 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.1-15.4) for gemcitabine-paclitaxel (n = 42), and 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.5-13.2) for paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 49). CONCLUSION: Whites and African Americans had similar outcomes, although there was some variability in survival among African Americans across the three treatment groups.

Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups Scientific Leadership Council: systemic therapy and therapeutic individualization.

Over 9,000 women with breast cancer are enrolled annually on clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), accounting for about one-third of all patients enrolled on NCI-sponsored trials. Thousands are also enrolled on pharmaceutical-sponsored studies. Although breast cancer mortality rates have recently declined for the first time in part due to systemic therapeutic advances, coordinated efforts will be necessary to maintain this trend. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened the Scientific Leadership Council in breast cancer (BC), an expert panel, to identify priorities for future research and current trials with greatest practice-changing potential. Panelists formed a consensus on research priorities for chemoprevention, development and application of molecular markers for predicting therapeutic benefit and toxicity, intermediate markers predictive of therapeutic effect, pathogenesis-based therapeutic approaches, utilization of adaptive designs requiring fewer patients to achieve objectives, special and minority populations, and effects of BC and treatment on patients and families. Panelists identified 13 ongoing studies as High Priority and identified gaps in the current trial portfolio. We propose priorities for current and future clinical breast cancer research evaluating systemic therapies that may serve to improve the efficiency of clinical trials, identify individuals most likely to derive therapeutic benefit, and prioritize therapeutic strategies.

Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the coalition of cancer cooperative groups scientific leadership council: imaging and local therapy.

Imaging and local therapy are important modalities for detection and management of localized breast cancer. Improvements in screening and local therapy have contributed to reduced breast cancer-associated morbidity and mortality. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups (CCCG) convened the Scientific Leadership Council (SLC) in breast cancer, an expert panel, to identify priorities for future research and current trials with greatest practice-changing potential. Panelists formed a consensus on research priorities for breast imaging and locoregional therapy, and also identified six trials judged to be of high priority. Current high priority trials included trials determining: (1) the role of accelerated partial breast versus whole-breast radiation (B39), (2) the feasibility, safety, and local and systemic control of small localized breast cancers treated with tumor ablation (Z1072), (3) the role of removal of the primary cancer in selected patients with metastatic disease (E2108), and (4) the clinical and biological effects of pre-operative anti-HER2-directed and ER-directed therapies in localized or locally advanced breast cancer (B41, Z1031, Z1041). Ongoing and future trials will further refine optimal locoregional management, and additional research is required to develop improved screening methods and identify high risk populations most likely to benefit from targeted screening.

Independent review of E2100: a phase III trial of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: E2100, an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel alone as initial chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: An independent, blinded review of radiologic and clinical data was performed, assessing progression and response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. In addition, ECOG's investigator assessments were reanalyzed using the same methods applied to the independent review. The primary end point was PFS as assessed by an independent review facility (IRF). RESULTS: The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS using both the IRF and investigator assessments. Hazard ratios for PFS (0.48, 95% CI, 0.385 to 0.607; P < .0001 for the IRF v 0.42, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.52; P < .0001 for ECOG investigators) and the improvement in median PFS (11.3 v 5.8 months for the IRF v 11.4 v 5.8 months for ECOG investigators) were similar. Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, the IRF-assessed ORR was significantly higher in patients treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab (48.9% v 22.2%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The risk of progression was reduced by more than half and the ORR more than doubled with the addition of bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel in both analyses, confirming a substantial and robust bevacizumab treatment effect. The consistency between the IRF and ECOG analyses validates the original data previously reported by ECOG in this open-label trial.

Physician-related factors involved in patient decisions to enroll onto cancer clinical trials.

The development of new cancer therapies requires additional, and more complex, clinical trials. But only approximately 3% to 5% of adult cancer patients participate in cancer clinical trials. This study seeks to identify and understand the attitudes of the public and cancer survivors toward health-related decisions and cancer clinical trials to identify the key factors that must be addressed to increase that percentage.

The role of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group in establishing standards of cancer care: over 50 years of progress through clinical research.

Since its start as the Eastern Cooperative Cancer Chemotherapy Group in 1955, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) has been at the vanguard of adult cancer clinical research in the United States, and for more than 50 years its research findings have influenced cancer care worldwide. While the cancer clinical research milieu has changed considerably since its inception, the ECOG, through sound leadership and a committed membership, has maintained its pioneering roles in scientific discovery and defining standards of cancer care for all adult cancers.

Addressing the current challenges of non-small-cell lung cancer clinical trial accrual.

Conducting research in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is challenging, primarily because of low patient accrual rates resulting from patient-, physician-, protocol-, and healthcare system-related barriers. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a 1-day program entitled Addressing the Current Challenges of NSCLC Clinical Trial Accrual to develop specific strategies for enhancing accrual into NSCLC clinical trials and to increase and sustain the level of discussion with and among cooperative group and community-based researchers. Some of the important areas that were highlighted at the meeting included predictors of successful and unsuccessful trial accrual based on 6 NSCLC trials, of which 4 were considered high-priority NSCLC trials; issues surrounding the process of clinical trial activation; and the role of patient advocates in enhancing trial accrual. Efforts by multidisciplinary teams comprising clinical and laboratory researchers, patient advocates, governmental agencies, and private industries are needed to improve NSCLC trial activation and accrual, with a focus on commitment to ongoing communication among all constituents, measures to improve the activation process, and increased study awareness at the community oncology and patient levels.

Priorities in colorectal cancer research: recommendations from the Gastrointestinal Scientific Leadership Council of the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups.

Emerging technologies have greatly expanded our ability to detect, characterize, and treat colorectal cancer. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a multidisciplinary panel, the Scientific Leadership Council in GI cancer, to discuss and advise on the priorities and opportunities to advance current and future approaches into the clinical arena to impact most rapidly the morbidity and mortality from this disease. The Council's recommendations for research priorities are the result of engagement of community and academic oncologists, patient advocacy groups, and other stakeholders including the pharmaceutical industry and governmental agencies. We detail some key prospects for investigation in the areas of colon cancer detection, prevention, and surgical and medical management. Many are in early or definitive clinical trials, and a focus on rapid accrual is urged. The implementation of biology-directed laboratory investigations, both in association with ongoing clinical trials and as a separate developmental strategy for targeted therapies, is supported as the route to individualized therapy.

Evaluating antiangiogenesis agents in the clinic: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Portfolio of Clinical Trials.

Recent evidence indicates that treatment with a humanized monoclonal antibody (bevacizumab) directed at vascular endothelial growth factor improves response and survival in metastatic colorectal cancer when added to standard chemotherapy, validating angiogenesis as a therapeutic target. Investigators from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) have initiated a number of Phase III studies that will help further define the role of antiangiogenic agents for the treatment of breast, colon, lung, renal, and head and neck cancer, as well as melanoma and myeloma. The agents being evaluated target various biological functions involved in angiogenesis, including vascular endothelial growth factor (bevacizumab), endothelial cell proliferation (thalidomide, IFN-alpha), and matrix metalloproteinases (marimastat). These clinical trials include correlative laboratory studies aimed at elucidating how these agents may exert their clinical effects. The portfolio of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group studies will serve to further define the role of this therapeutic strategy for patients with advanced cancer.

A brief history of the research and treatment of lung cancer from 1970 to 2003.

Lung cancer accounts for one-third of all cancer deaths worldwide. Once considered untreatable, lung cancer patients now have several different treatment options, and the potential for more effective therapies is promising. Clinical trials conducted during the past 25 to 30 years in the United States Cooperative Group System and throughout the world have defined the standard of care and made several initial treatment therapies possible. This article includes a summary of major findings of significant trials for varying disease stages; reviews major drug developments; and includes and a discussion of unanswered questions and trials currently underway that may provide the answers. Depending on the stage of disease, various therapeutic combinations can be effective in improving the time to progression, response, safety, and survival of lung cancer patients. Much has been accomplished on behalf of lung cancer patients. However, 80% to 90% of patients who develop lung cancer will die of their disease. Many questions remain to be answered, especially in the area of targeted therapies.

Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to understand the attitudes of American adults toward participation in cancer clinical trials. METHODS: A national probability sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and older living in noninstitutional settings was interviewed by telephone by Harris Interactive during March and April 2000. One participant was selected from each household selected for the study. The resulting data were weighted to reflect the full adult population of the United States as reported in Current Population Reports. An Index of Participation in a Cancer Clinical Trial was computed, using a confirmatory factor analysis and converting the factor scores into a 0-to-100 scale. RESULTS: Approximately 32% of American adults (64 million individuals) indicate that they would be very willing to participate in a cancer clinical trial if asked to do so. An additional 38% of adults (76 million individuals) scored in a range that indicates that they are inclined to participate in a cancer clinical trial if asked, but hold some questions or reservations about participation. Projected rates of diagnosis, eligibility, and recruitment indicate that substantially more patients are willing to participate than are actually accrued. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the primary problem with accrual is not the attitudes of patients, but rather that the loss of potential participants is the result of the unavailability of an appropriate clinical trial and the disqualification of large numbers of patients. The pool of willing patients is further reduced by the reluctance of some physicians to engage in accrual.