The relationship between body composition and left ventricular performance in women with breast, lymphoma, or sarcoma cancer.

BACKGROUND: To understand how body composition in those with elevated body mass index impacts left ventricular function decline during cancer treatment, we determined the association between baseline body mass index (BMI), intra-abdominal adipose tissue (IAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) with baseline to 3-month left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) change among women receiving potentially cardiotoxic chemotherapy for breast cancer, lymphoma, or sarcoma. METHODS: Women underwent potentially cardiotoxic chemotherapy, such as doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab, for treatment of breast cancer, lymphoma, or sarcoma. We obtained magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of body composition and cardiac function prior to treatment, and then a repeat MRI for cardiac function assessment at three months into treatment. Analyses and assessment of abdominal adipose tissue volumes and LVEF outcomes were conducted by independent reviewers blinded to all patient identifiers. A general linear model was created to examine associations between adipose tissue depots, BMI, and 3-month LVEF change. RESULTS: Women (n = 210) aged 56 ± 11 years with breast cancer, lymphoma, and sarcoma were enrolled (n = 195, 14, 1 respectively). Baseline BMI, IAT, and SAT fat were independently associated with 3-month LVEF declines (p = 0.001 to 0.025 for all). After adjusting for baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors, BMI, IAT, and SAT, BMI remained the only variable associated with 3-month LVEF decline (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that factors other than abdominal adipose tissue or traditional cardiovascular risk factors may contribute to 3-month declines in LVEF among women with elevated BMI receiving potentially cardiotoxic chemotherapy. Further investigation should be conducted on psychosocial stress, physical activity, sleep, or diet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DETECTIV_NCT01719562, WF99112, & WF97415-NCT02791581.

Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Donepezil for Treatment of Cognitive Impairment in Breast Cancer Survivors After Adjuvant Chemotherapy (WF-97116).

PURPOSE: To test efficacy of donepezil, a cognitive enhancer, to improve memory in breast cancer survivors who report cancer-related cognitive impairment 1-5 years postchemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult female BCS exposed to ≥4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy 1-5 years before enrollment who reported cancer-related cognitive impairment were eligible. Participants, enrolled at sites affiliated with the Wake Forest NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base, were randomly assigned to receive 5 mg of donepezil once daily for 6 weeks titrated to 10 mg once daily for 18 weeks or placebo. Cognition and self-report cognitive functioning was assessed at baseline, 12, 24 (end of intervention), and 36 (washout) weeks postrandomization. Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance models were used to assess treatment differences in immediate recall (primary outcome) on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) and other cognitive domains (secondary outcomes) with covariates of treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, baseline outcome level, age stratification, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for within participant correlation over time. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six BCS from 87 NCORP practices (mean age, 57.1, standard deviation [SD], 10.5) who were at a mean of 29.6 months (SD, 14.2) postchemotherapy were randomly assigned to donepezil (n = 140) or placebo (n = 136). At 24 weeks, treatment groups did not differ on HVLT-R scores (donepezil mean = 25.98, placebo = 26.50, P = .32). There were no statistically significant differences between treatments at 12, 24, or 36 weeks for attention, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, or self-reported cognitive functioning. Endocrine therapy and menopausal status did not affect results. CONCLUSION: BCS 1-5 years after completing chemotherapy with documented memory problems, randomly assigned to 24 weeks of 5-10 mg of donepezil once daily, did not perform differently at the end of treatment on tests of memory, other cognitive functions, or subjective functioning than those randomly assigned to placebo.

Primary Care Provider Visits Among Cancer Survivors 5-7 Years Postdiagnosis.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors experience better outcomes when primary care providers (PCPs) are engaged in their care. Nearly all survivors have a PCP engaged in their care in the initial 5 years postdiagnosis, but little is known about sustained PCP engagement. We assessed PCP engagement in survivors' care 5-7 years postdiagnosis and characterized survivors most vulnerable to loss to PCP follow-up. METHODS: We linked electronic health record ambulatory care and cancer registry data from an National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center to identify eligible survivors (≥18 years; diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or uterine cancer; had an in-network PCP). We used multiple logistic regression to assess associations between survivor demographics, clinical factors, and health care utilization and odds of sustained PCP engagement. RESULTS: In 5-7 years postdiagnosis, PCPs were engaged in care for 43% of survivors. Survivors with sustained PCP-engagement were on average 4.6 years older than those without (P < .0001); survivors had 1.36 greater odds of having regular PCP visits for each decade increase in age on cancer diagnosis (P = .0030). Survivors were less likely to be lost to PCP follow-up if diagnosed at an earlier stage with odds at 0.57 and 0.10 for stage I and stage IV, respectively (P = .0005), and had 2.70 greater odds of engagement in care with at least one oncology visit annually 5-7 years postdiagnosis (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Sustained PCP engagement is endorsed as critical by survivors, PCPs, and oncologists. We found most survivors were lost to PCP follow-up 5-7 years postdiagnosis. Our study is among the first to contribute empirical evidence of survivors being lost in transition. Findings from this study demonstrate the need to bridge gaps in long-term care for cancer survivors.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Cancer Care: A Nationwide Landscape Assessment Update.

PURPOSE: Routine collection of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI; collectively SOGI) in cancer clinics advances cancer care equity. METHODS: In 2022, NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice groups were asked about routine collection of SOGI data in the electronic health record. The proportions of practice groups reporting collection of SO and/or GI data were calculated, and practice group characteristics were assessed for associations. RESULTS: Of 271 practice groups nationwide, 42% (n = 112) collect SO data, 58% (n = 157) collect GI data, and 35% (n = 96) collect both. In multivariate analyses, SO data collection was associated with practice groups having minority outreach staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.07 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.81]; P = .02); GI data collection was associated with practice groups located in the Northeastern United States (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 0.73 to 5.91]; P = .045), and those with a higher proportion of new patients who were White (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]; P < .001). Practice groups in the South were least likely to collect SOGI data (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.94]; P = .004). There were no statistically significant differences in SO and/or GI collection on the basis of the practice group's proportion of Medicaid/Medicare patients, number of new patients with cancer per year, or practice ownership. CONCLUSION: Slightly over one third of NCORP practice groups report routinely collecting SOGI data. There are regional differences in data collection, underscoring the need to craft targeted, region-specific interventions focused on boosting the capture and recording of SOGI data in an affirming manner.

Acupuncture for Chronic Radiation-Induced Xerostomia in Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with head and neck cancer who undergo radiotherapy can develop chronic radiation-induced xerostomia. Prior acupuncture studies were single center and rated as having high risk of bias, making it difficult to know the benefits of acupuncture for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Objective: To compare true acupuncture (TA), sham acupuncture (SA), and standard oral hygiene (SOH) for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, blinded, 3-arm, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 29, 2013, and June 9, 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 9, 2022, through May 17, 2023. Patients reporting grade 2 or 3 radiation-induced xerostomia 12 months or more postradiotherapy for head and neck cancer were recruited from community-based cancer centers across the US that were part of the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base. Participants had received bilateral radiotherapy with no history of xerostomia. Interventions: Participants received SOH and were randomized to TA, SA, or SOH only. Participants in the TA and SA cohorts were treated 2 times per week for 4 weeks. Those experiencing a minor response received another 4 weeks of treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported outcomes for xerostomia (Xerostomia Questionnaire, primary outcome) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) were collected at baseline, 4 (primary time point), 8, 12, and 26 weeks. All analyses were intention to treat. Results: A total of 258 patients (201 men [77.9%]; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [9.16] years), participated from 33 sites across 13 states. Overall, 86 patients were assigned to each study arm. Mean (SD) years from diagnosis was 4.21 (3.74) years, 67.1% (n = 173) had stage IV disease. At week 4, Xerostomia Questionnaire scores revealed significant between-group differences, with lower Xerostomia Questionnaire scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 50.6; SOH: 57.3; difference, -6.67; 95% CI, -11.08 to -2.27; P = .003), and differences between TA and SA (TA: 50.6; SA: 55.0; difference, -4.41; 95% CI, -8.62 to -0.19; P = .04) yet did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons. There was no significant difference between SA and SOH. Group differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores revealed statistically significant group differences at week 4, with higher scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 101.6; SOH: 97.7; difference, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.43-6.38; P = .002) and at week 12, with higher scores with TA vs SA (TA: 102.1; SA: 98.4; difference, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.10-6.18; P = .005) and TA vs SOH (TA: 102.1; SOH: 97.4; difference, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.99-7.23; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial suggest that TA was more effective in treating chronic radiation-induced xerostomia 1 or more years after the end of radiotherapy than SA or SOH. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02589938.

Cardiovascular health assessment in routine cancer follow-up in community settings: survivor risk awareness and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. For effective implementation, it is critical to understand survivor cardiovascular health (CVH) profiles and perspectives in community settings. We aimed to (1) Assess survivor CVH profiles, (2) compare self-reported and EHR-based categorization of CVH factors, and (3) describe perceptions regarding addressing CVH during oncology encounters. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing NCI Community Oncology Research Program trial of an EHR heart health tool for cancer survivors (WF-1804CD). Survivors presenting for routine care after potentially curative treatment recruited from 8 oncology practices completed a pre-visit survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVH factors (classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor). Medical record abstraction ascertained CVD risk factors and cancer characteristics. Likert-type questions assessed desired discussion during oncology care. RESULTS: Of 502 enrolled survivors (95.6% female; mean time since diagnosis = 4.2 years), most had breast cancer (79.7%). Many survivors had common cardiovascular comorbidities, including high cholesterol (48.3%), hypertension or high BP (47.8%) obesity (33.1%), and diabetes (20.5%); 30.5% of survivors received high cardiotoxicity potential cancer treatment. Less than half had ideal/non-missing levels for physical activity (48.0%), BMI (18.9%), cholesterol (17.9%), blood pressure (14.1%), healthy diet (11.0%), and glucose/ HbA1c (6.0%). While > 50% of survivors had concordant EHR-self-report categorization for smoking, BMI, and blood pressure; cholesterol, glucose, and A1C were unknown by survivors and/or missing in the EHR for most. Most survivors agreed oncology providers should talk about heart health (78.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Tools to promote CVH discussion can fill gaps in CVH knowledge and are likely to be well-received by survivors in community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03935282, Registered 10/01/2020.

Availability of cancer survivorship support services across the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network.

BACKGROUND: National cancer organizations recommend provision of nutrition, physical activity, and mental health supportive services to cancer survivors. However, the availability of these services across diverse community oncology settings remains unclear. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) is a national network of community oncology practices engaged in cancer research. The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment (5UG1CA189824) assessed individual practices' establishment of survivorship clinics and nutrition, physical activity, and mental health services, resources, and/or referrals. Descriptive statistics summarized and logistic regression quantified the association between services, practice, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 46 NCORP community sites, 45 (98%) responded to the survey, representing 259 adult practice groups. A total of 41% had a survivorship clinic; 96% offered mental health, 94% nutrition, and 53% physical activity services, resources, and/or referrals. All 3 services were offered in various formats (eg, in-house, referrals, education) by 51% and in-house only by 25% of practices. Practices with advanced practice providers were more likely to have a survivorship clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 9.76). Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.66) and more oncology providers (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.04) were more likely to have all 3 services in any format. Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.50 to 7.77) and a survivorship clinic (OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.57 to 5.14) were more likely to have all 3 services in-house. CONCLUSIONS: Larger oncology practices and those caring for more survivors on Medicare provided more supportive services, resources, and/or referrals. Smaller practices and those without survivorship clinics may need strategies to address potential gaps in supportive services.

Processes for identifying caregivers and screening for caregiver and patient distress in community oncology: results from WF-1803CD.

BACKGROUND: Despite their vital roles, informal caregivers of adult cancer patients are commonly overlooked in cancer care. This study describes processes for identifying cancer caregivers and processes for distress screening and management among caregivers and patients in the understudied community oncology setting. METHODS: Supportive care leaders from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practices completed online survey questions regarding caregiver identification, caregiver and patient distress screening, and distress management strategies. We described practice group characteristics and prevalence of study outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression explored associations between practice group characteristics and caregiver identification in the electronic health record (EHR). RESULTS: Most (64.9%, 72 of 111) supportive care leaders reported routine identification and documentation of informal caregivers; 63.8% record this information in the EHR. Only 16% routinely screen caregivers for distress, though 92.5% screen patients. Distress management strategies for caregivers and patients are widely available, yet only 12.6% are routinely identified and screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for caregivers with distress; 90.6% are routinely screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for patients. Practices with a free-standing outpatient clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, P = .0106) and academic affiliation (OR = 0.01, P = .04) were less likely to identify and document caregivers in the EHR. However, higher oncologist volume was associated with an increased likelihood of recording caregiver information in the EHR (OR = 1.04, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high levels of patient distress screening and management, few practices provide comprehensive caregiver engagement practices. Existing patient engagement protocols may provide a promising platform to build capacity to better address caregiver needs.

Physical Activity During Breast Cancer Therapy Associates With Preserved Exercise Capacity and Cardiac Function (WF97415).

Background: Cancer treatment increases cardiovascular disease risk, but physical activity (PA) may prevent cardiovascular disease. Objectives: This study examined whether greater PA was associated with better submaximal exercise capacity and cardiac function during cancer therapy. Methods: Participants included 223 women with stage I to III breast cancer (BC) before and 3 months after undergoing treatment and 126 control participants. Leisure-time PA (LTPA) was reported using the Godin-Shephard LTPA questionnaire. Cardiac function was assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance. Submaximal exercise capacity was determined by 6-minute walk distance. Results: BC participants reported similar baseline LTPA scores (24.7; 95% CI: 21.7-28.0) as control participants (29.4; 95% CI: 25.0-34.2). The BC group declined to 16.9 (95% CI: 14.4-19.6) at 3 months relative to 30.8 (95% CI: 26.2-35.8) in control participants. Among BC participants, more LTPA was related to better exercise capacity (ß ± SE: 7.1 ± 1.6; 95% CI: 4.0-10.1) and left ventricular (LV) circumferential strain (-0.16 ± 0.07; 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.02). Increased LTPA over the 3 months was associated with decreased likelihood of treatment-induced cardiac dysfunction according to LV circumferential strain classifications (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-0.998). BC participants reporting insufficient LTPA according to PA guidelines exhibited deteriorations in exercise capacity (adjusted mean difference ± SE: -29 ± 10 m; P = 0.029), LV end-systolic volume (5.8 ± 1.3 mL; P < 0.001), LV ejection fraction (-3.2% ± 0.8%; P = 0.002), and LV circumferential strain (2.5% ± 0.5%; P < 0.001), but BC participants meeting LTPA guidelines did not exhibit these adverse changes. Conclusions: PA declined during BC therapy; however, PA participation was associated with attenuated declines in exercise capacity and cardiac function that are often observed in this population. (Understanding and Predicting Breast Cancer Events After Treatment [WF97415 UPBEAT]; NCT02791581).

Endometrial cancer survivors' perceptions of their cardiovascular disease risk (results from WF-1804CD AH-HA).

OBJECTIVE: Despite considerable burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), data on endometrial cancer survivors' CVD perceptions are lacking. We assessed survivors' perspectives on addressing CVD risk during oncology care. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing trial of an EHR heart health tool (R01CA226078 & UG1CA189824) conducted through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP, WF-1804CD). Endometrial cancer survivors post-potentially curative treatment were recruited from community practices and completed a pre-visit baseline survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVD factors. Likert-type questions assessed confidence in understanding CVD risk, CVD risk perception, and desired discussion during oncology care. Medical record abstraction ascertained data on CVD and cancer characteristics. RESULTS: Survivors (N = 55, median age = 62; 62% 0-2 years post-diagnosis) were predominately white, non-Hispanic (87%). Most agreed/strongly agreed heart disease poses a risk to their health (87%) and oncology providers should talk to patients about heart health (76%). Few survivors reported smoking (12%) but many had poor/intermediate values for blood pressure (95%), body mass index (93%), fasting glucose/A1c (60%), diet (60%), exercise (47%) and total cholesterol (53%). 16% had not seen a PCP in the last year; these survivors were more likely to report financial hardship (22% vs 0%; p = 0.02). Most reported readiness to take steps to maintain or improve heart health (84%). CONCLUSIONS: Discussions of CVD risk during routine oncology care are likely to be well received by endometrial cancer survivors. Strategies are needed to implement CVD risk assessment guidelines and to enhance communication and referrals with primary care. Clinical Trials #: NCT03935282.

Reducing Anxiety and Dyspnea via Device-Guided Breathing (RELAX): A Multi-Site Feasibility Study in Post-Treatment Lung Cancer Survivors at Community Cancer Clinics (WF-01213).

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety and dyspnea are 2 common symptoms for lung cancer survivors. Although research suggests decreasing respiration rate can reduce anxiety in several populations, potential benefits of device-guided breathing have not been studied in lung cancer survivors. This feasibility study (WF-01213) provides estimates of accrual, adherence, retention, and preliminary efficacy of 2 doses of a device-guided breathing intervention versus a usual breathing control group for improving self-reported anxiety and dyspnea in post-treatment lung cancer survivors. METHODS: Stage I-IV lung cancer survivors were recruited through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) and randomized to 12 weeks of a device-guided breathing intervention (high dose vs. low dose) or control device. Self-reported outcomes (anxiety, depression, dyspnea, cancer-related worry, fatigue) were assessed at baseline, mid-intervention (Week-6), and post-intervention (Week-12). RESULTS: Forty-six participants (ages 41-77, median = 65; 78% White) were randomized to the high-dose intervention (n = 14), low-dose intervention (n = 14), or control (n = 18) groups between July 2015 and September 2019. Study accrual rate was 0.92 per month for 50 months (projected accrual was 6.3/month). Fourteen participants (30%) withdrew early from the study, with almost half of those discontinuing at or immediately following baseline assessment. No participants were adherent with the intervention per protocol specifications. The proportion minimally adherent (using device at least 1x/week) was 43% (6/14), 64% (9/14), and 61% (11/18) for high-dose, low-dose, and control groups, respectively. Anxiety significantly decreased from baseline for all groups at Week 12. Adherence to the intervention was low across all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not establish feasibility of a community-based randomized trial of 2 doses of device-guided breathing and a control group using an identical-looking device for lung cancer survivors. In both the high-dose and control groups, there were significant improvements from baseline for anxiety and dyspnea. In the low-dose group, there were significant improvements from baseline for anxiety and depression. Ratings and feedback on the intervention were mixed (although leaned in a positive direction). Participants reported liking the feeling of relaxation/calm, helping others, breathing awareness, and music. Participants reporting liking least finding/making time to use the device, frustration with the device, and completing study forms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLINICAL TRIALS ID: NCT02063828, clinicaltrials.gov.

Pilot study of implementing the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in Survivorship (SHARE-S) program in coordination with clinical care.

INTRODUCTION: Initial cancer survivorship care planning efforts focused on information sharing demonstrated limited impact on patient health outcomes. We designed the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic Systems in survivorship (SHARE-S) program to enhance survivorship guideline implementation by transitioning some effort from clinicians to technology and patients through supporting health self-management (e.g., healthy lifestyles). METHODS: We conducted a single-group hybrid implementation-effectiveness pilot study. SHARE-S incorporated three strategies: (1) e-referral from the clinical team for patient engagement, (2) three health self-management coach calls, and (3) text messages to enhance coaching. Our primary implementation measure was the proportion of patients e-referred who enrolled (target >30%). Secondary implementation measures assessed patient engagement. We also measured effectiveness by describing changes in patient health outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 118 cancer survivor patients e-referred, 40 engaged in SHARE-S (proportion enrolled = 34%). Participants had a mean age of 57.4 years (SD = 15.7), 73% were female, 23% were Black/African American, and 5 (12.5%) were from a rural location. Patient-level adherence to coach calls was >90%. Changes from baseline to follow-up showed at least a small effect (Cohen's d = 0.2) for improvements in: mindful attention, alcohol use, physical activity, fruit and vegetable intake, days of mindfulness practice, depressive symptoms, ability to participate in social roles and activities, cancer-specific quality of life, benefits of having cancer, and positive feelings. CONCLUSION: The SHARE-S program successfully engaged cancer survivor patients. Once enrolled, patients showed promising improvements in health outcomes. Supporting patient self-management is an important component of optimizing delivery of cancer survivorship care.

The Optimizing Lung Screening Trial (WF-20817CD): Multicenter Randomized Effectiveness Implementation Trial to Increase Tobacco Use Cessation for Individuals Undergoing Lung Screening.

BACKGROUND: One-half of all people who undergo lung cancer screening (LCS) currently use tobacco. However, few published studies have explored how to implement effective tobacco use treatment optimally during the LCS encounter. RESEARCH QUESTION: Was the Optimizing Lung Screening intervention (OaSiS) effective at reducing tobacco use among patients undergoing LCS in community-based radiology facilities? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The OaSiS study (National Cancer Institute [NCI] Protocol No.: WF-20817CD) is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomized trial of radiology facilities conducted in partnership with the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base. We randomly assigned 26 radiology facilities in 20 states to the intervention or usual care group. Staff at intervention facilities implemented a variety of strategies targeting the clinic and care team. Eligible patient participants were aged 55 to 77 years undergoing LCS and currently using tobacco. Of 1,094 who completed a baseline survey (523 intervention group, 471 control group) immediately before the LCS appointment, 956 completed the 6-month follow-up (86% retention rate). Fifty-four percent of those who reported not using tobacco at 6 months completed biochemical verification via mailed cotinine assay. Generalized estimating equation marginal models were used in an intention-to-treat analysis to predict 7-day tobacco use abstinence. RESULTS: The average self-reported abstinence among participants varied considerably across facilities (0%-27%). Despite a significant increase in average cessation rate over time (0% at baseline to approximately 13% at 6 months; P < .0001), tobacco use did not differ by trial group at 14 days (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.46-1.99; P = .90), 3 months (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.69-1.99; P = .56), or 6 months (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.65-1.43; P = .87). INTERPRETATION: The OaSiS trial participants showed a significant reduction in tobacco use over time, but no difference by trial arm was found. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03291587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Prognostic Awareness, Palliative Care Use, and Barriers to Palliative Care in Patients Undergoing Immunotherapy or Chemo-Immunotherapy for Metastatic Lung Cancer.

Background and Objectives: This study describes patients' prognostic awareness and palliative care use in the setting of immunotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Design: We surveyed 60 mNSCLC patients receiving immunotherapy at a large academic medical center; conducted follow-up interviews with 12 survey participants; and abstracted palliative care use, advance directive completion, and death within a year of survey completion from the medical record. Results: Forty seven percent of patients surveyed thought they would be cured; 83% were not interested in palliative care. Interviews suggested oncologists emphasized therapeutic options when discussing prognosis and that commonly used descriptions of palliative care may exacerbate misperceptions. Only 7% had received outpatient palliative care and 8% had an advance directive a year after the survey; only 16% of the 19 patients who died had received outpatient palliative care. Conclusions: Interventions are needed to facilitate prognostic discussions and outpatient palliative care during immunotherapy. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03741868.

Bridging the Communication Gaps: A Prospective Single-Arm Pilot Study Testing the Feasibility of Interdisciplinary Radiotherapy Planning in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The treatment of locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) with radiotherapy (RT) can be challenging. Multidisciplinary collaboration between radiologists and radiation oncologists (ROs) may optimize RT planning, reduce uncertainty in follow-up imaging interpretation, and improve outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective clinical treatment trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04844736), 37 patients receiving definitive RT for LALC, six attending ROs, and three thoracic radiologists were consented and enrolled across four treatment centers. Prior to RT plan finalization, representative computed tomography (CT) slices with overlaid outlines of preliminary irradiation targets were shared with the team of radiologists. The primary endpoint was to assess feasibility of receiving feedback no later than 4 business days of RT simulation on at least 50% of plans. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with lung cancer were enrolled, and 35 of 37 RT plans were reviewed. Of the 35 patients reviewed, mean age was 69 years. For 27 of 37 plans (73%), feedback was received within 4 or fewer days (interquartile range 3-4 days). Thirteen of 35 cases (37%) received feedback that the delineated target potentially did not include all sites suspicious for tumor involvement. In total, changes to the RT plan were recommended for over- or undercoverage in 16 of 35 cases (46%) and implemented in all cases. Radiology review resulted in no treatment delays and substantial changes to irradiated volumes: gross tumor volume, -1.9 to +96.1%; planning target volume, -37.5 to +116.5%. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary collaborative RT planning using a simplified workflow was feasible, produced no treatment delays, and prompted substantial changes in RT targets.

Sociodemographic and Clinical Factors Associated With Radiation Treatment Nonadherence and Survival Among Rural and Nonrural Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment nonadherence is associated with higher rates of cancer recurrence and decreased survival. Rural patients with cancer experience a 10% higher mortality rate compared with their nonrural counterparts; geographic differences in nonadherence may contribute to this increased mortality. The goal of this study was to assess for geographic disparities and determine sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with radiation therapy (RT) nonadherence and survival among rural and nonrural patients with cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We examined cancer registry, medical records, and billing claims data at a safety net academic medical center. Geographic residence was defined as rural versus nonrural by US Department of Agriculture 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Other factors assessed were age, sex, race, marital status, insurance type, employment, area median household income, residential distance to cancer treatment center, clinical stage, cancer type, treatment modality, total radiation dose received, and radiation dose per fraction. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to examine 7 ways of operationalizing nonadherence and selected the definition that resulted in the best model fit statistics and prediction of mortality. Overall survival rates were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. We then examined nonadherence as the main exposure along with additional covariates in least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalized survival analyses and as the outcome in our multivariable generalized linear regression analyses predicting nonadherence. We considered 2-way interaction terms with the main exposure, geographic residence. RESULTS: We identified 3,077 patients with cancer who averaged 62 years old, were 59% female, 34% Black, and 14% rural. Twenty-two percent of patients missed at least 2 fractions and missed an average of 10% of their treatment plan. Rural patients experienced a higher mortality rate than nonrural patients (53% vs 42%, P < .0001). Survival was assessed through December 31, 2021, with a mean follow-up of 4.5 years. Proportion of missed fractions as the indicator of nonadherence provided the best model fit statistics and prediction of survival. Marital status, employment status, tumor, nodes, metastases stage, cancer type, and age at diagnosis significantly affected survival, in addition to a treatment delay by geographic residence interaction effect. Specifically, patients residing in rural areas who experienced a treatment delay were more than twice as likely to die as nonrural residents who also experienced a treatment delay, and nearly twice as likely to die as rural residents who did not experience a treatment delay. The 2-year survival rate was 76% for nonrural residents who did not experience a treatment delay versus 27% for rural residents who experienced a treatment delay. Patients who were widowed, had stage 4 cancer, or lung cancer were more likely to be nonadherent. Finally, patients residing in rural areas who experienced a treatment delay were more likely to subsequently be nonadherent. CONCLUSIONS: In a geographically and racially diverse population, RT nonadherence is a significant concern that affects survival, yet it is a modifiable risk factor. We demonstrated that rural residence was associated with both RT nonadherence and poorer overall survival. Rural patients with a treatment delay had the lowest overall survival, compared with both nonrural survivors and rural survivors without delay. Rural residents who are delayed in starting treatment are at heightened risk for poor outcomes and should receive targeted support to mitigate the observed disparities. Additional patient populations that may benefit from targeted treatment adherence support include widowed patients and those with stage 4 cancer or lung cancer.

Feasibility of Systems Support Mapping to guide patient-driven health self-management in colorectal cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility of System Support Mapping (MAP), a systems thinking activity that involves creating a diagram of existing self-management activities (e.g. symptom management, health behaviors) to facilitate autonomous engagement in optimal self-management. DESIGN: One-arm pilot study of MAP in colorectal cancer survivors (NCT03520283). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility of recruitment and retention (primary outcome), acceptability, and outcome variability over time. RESULTS: We enrolled 24 of 66 cancer survivors approached (36%) and 20 completed follow-up (83%). Key reasons for declining participation included: not interested (n = 18), did not perceive a need (n = 9), and emotional distress/overwhelmed (n = 7). Most participants reported that MAP was acceptable (e.g. 80% liked MAP quite a bit/very much). Exploratory analyses revealed a -4.68 point reduction in fatigue from before to 2 weeks after MAP exceeding a minimally important difference (d = -0.68). There were also improvements in patient autonomy (d = 0.63), self-efficacy (for managing symptoms: d = 0.56, for managing chronic disease: d = 0.44), psychological stress (d = -0.45), anxiety (d = -0.34), sleep disturbance (d = -0.29) and pain (d = -0.32). Qualitative feedback enhanced interpretation of results. CONCLUSIONS: MAP feasibility in colorectal cancer survivors was mixed, predominantly because many patients did not perceive a need for this approach. MAP was acceptable among participants and showed promise for improving health outcomes.