Excess morbidity and mortality associated with underuse of estrogen replacement therapy in premenopausal women who undergo surgical menopause.

BACKGROUND: Contrary to clinical guidelines, there has been a decrease over time in estrogen therapy use in premenopausal women undergoing bilateral oophorectomy for benign indications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the excess morbidity and mortality associated with current patterns of estrogen therapy use in women who undergo bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy for benign indications. STUDY DESIGN: We developed 2 Bayesian sampling Markov state-transition models to estimate the excess disease incidence (incidence model) and mortality (mortality model). The starting cohort for both models were women who had undergone bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy for benign indications at the age of 45 to 49 years. The models tracked outcomes in 5-year intervals for 25 years. The incidence model estimated excess incidence of breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, and stroke, whereas the mortality model estimated excess mortality due to breast cancer, lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and all-other-cause mortality. The models compared current rates of estrogen therapy use with optimal (100%) use and calculated the mean difference in each simulated outcome to determine excess disease incidence and death. RESULTS: By 25 years after bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy, there were an estimated 94 (95% confidence interval, -158 to -23) fewer colorectal cancer cases, 658 (95% confidence interval, 339-1025) more coronary heart disease cases, and 881 (95% confidence interval, 402-1483) more stroke cases. By 25 years after bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy, there were an estimated 189 (95% confidence interval, 59-387) more breast cancer deaths, 380 (95% confidence interval, 114-792) more coronary heart disease deaths, and 759 (95% confidence interval, 307-1527) more all-other-cause deaths. In sensitivity analyses where we defined estrogen therapy use as a duration of >2 years of use, these differences increased >2-fold. CONCLUSION: Underuse of estrogen therapy in premenopausal women who undergo oophorectomy is associated with substantial excess morbidity and mortality.

The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing. METHODS: The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services. DISCUSSION: With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations.

Importance: The OlympiA trial found that 1 year of adjuvant olaparib therapy can improve distant disease-free survival and overall survival from early-stage breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. However, olaparib, an oral poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitor, is estimated to cost approximately $14 000 per month in the US. Objective: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib compared with no olaparib in eligible patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an economic evaluation from a health care system perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib was analyzed using a Markov state-transition model. The model simulated costs and lifetime health outcomes of 42-year-old women with high-risk early-stage breast cancer and a known BRCA1/2 mutation who completed definitive primary therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. The study was conducted from August 2021 to July 2023. The effectiveness of olaparib was based on the findings of the OlympiA randomized clinical trial, and other model parameters were identified from the literature. The model was calibrated to the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year distant disease-free and overall survival observed in the OlympiA trial, and olaparib was assumed to reduce the risk of distant recurrence only in the first 4 years. Exposure: One year of adjuvant olaparib or no adjuvant olaparib. Main Outcome and Measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2021 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All outcomes were discounted by 3% annually. Results: In the base case, adjuvant olaparib was associated with a 1.25-year increase in life expectancy and a 1.20-QALY increase at an incremental cost of $133 133 compared with no olaparib. The resulting ICER was approximately $111 000 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, olaparib was cost-effective at its 2021 price and in more than 92% of simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results were sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of olaparib and quality of life for patients with no disease recurrence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, from a US health care system perspective, adjuvant olaparib was a cost-effective option for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation.

Disparities with influenza vaccine use in long-term survivors of metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Elderly women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are living longer, however their primary care management may be sub-optimal. Influenza results in preventable hospitalizations and deaths. Guidelines recommend the influenza vaccine for those > 65 years and those with cancer but use is unknown. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with MBC from 1/1/2008-12/31/2017 and were ≥ 65 years of age. The primary outcome was influenza vaccine use among patients surviving ≥ 3-years. We conducted multivariable analyses using demographic and clinical factors to identify associations with vaccine use. We compared utilization to cancer-free controls. RESULTS: We identified 1,970 patients with MBC that survived for ≥ 3 years. The median age at diagnosis was 73 years. Furthermore, 1,742 (88%) patients were White, and 153 (8%) patients were Black. Only 1,264 (64%) received an influenza vaccine at least one time and 51% received the vaccine at least two times. A multivariable model found lower odds of vaccine receipt for Black patients (OR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.68, p < 0.001) and higher odds for patients that saw primary care in the year prior to diagnosis (OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.57-2.33, p < 0.001). Patients with MBC had lower odds of vaccine use compared to cancer free controls (OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Over 1/3 of long-term MBC survivors in our cohort did not receive the influenza vaccine. Black patients are about half as likely to be vaccinated. Given the known benefit of the vaccine, improving uptake could be an important strategy to improve outcomes.

Screening for lung cancer: 2023 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of mortality and person-years of life lost from cancer among US men and women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced lung cancer mortality. Our objective was to update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2013 lung cancer screening (LCS) guideline for adults at high risk for lung cancer. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for screening to health care providers and their patients who are at high risk for lung cancer due to a history of smoking. The ACS Guideline Development Group (GDG) utilized a systematic review of the LCS literature commissioned for the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 LCS recommendation update; a second systematic review of lung cancer risk associated with years since quitting smoking (YSQ); literature published since 2021; two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network-validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening; an epidemiologic and modeling analysis examining the effect of YSQ and aging on lung cancer risk; and an updated analysis of benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios from LCS and follow-up examinations. The GDG also examined disease burden data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. The GDG judged that the overall evidence was moderate and sufficient to support a strong recommendation for screening individuals who meet the eligibility criteria. LCS in men and women aged 50-80 years is associated with a reduction in lung cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports LCS for men and women older than 80 years who are in good health. The ACS recommends annual LCS with low-dose computed tomography for asymptomatic individuals aged 50-80 years who currently smoke or formerly smoked and have a ≥20 pack-year smoking history (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). Before the decision is made to initiate LCS, individuals should engage in a shared decision-making discussion with a qualified health professional. For individuals who formerly smoked, the number of YSQ is not an eligibility criterion to begin or to stop screening. Individuals who currently smoke should receive counseling to quit and be connected to cessation resources. Individuals with comorbid conditions that substantially limit life expectancy should not be screened. These recommendations should be considered by health care providers and adults at high risk for lung cancer in discussions about LCS. If fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States.

Association Between Copayment Assistance, Insurance Type, Prior Authorization, and Time to Receipt of Oral Anticancer Drugs.

PURPOSE: Oral anticancer drugs (OACDs) have become increasingly prevalent over the past decade. OACD prescriptions require coordination between payers and providers, which can delay drug receipt. We examined the association between insurance type, pursuit of copayment assistance, pursuit of prior authorization (PA), and time to receipt (TTR) for new OACD prescriptions. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, including demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance type, and pursuit of PA and copayment assistance. TTR was defined as the number of days from prescription to OACD receipt. We summarized TTR using cumulative incidence and compared TTR by insurance type, pursuit of copayment assistance, and PA activity using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Our cohort of 1,024 patients was 53% male, and 40% were younger than 65. Twenty-six percent had commercial insurance only, 16% had Medicaid only, and 59% had Medicare with or without additional insurance. Eighty-six percent of prescriptions were successfully received. Across all prescriptions, 69% involved PA activity, and 21% involved the copayment assistance process. In unadjusted analyses, prescriptions involving the copayment assistance process had longer TTR compared with those not involving assistance (log-rank P value = .005) and OACDs covered by Medicare/commercial insurance had a longer TTR compared with Medicaid (log-rank P value = .006). The PA process was not associated with TTR (log-rank P value = .124). CONCLUSION: The process for obtaining OACDs is complex. The copayment assistance process and Medicare/commercial insurance are associated with delayed TTR. New policies are needed to reduce time to OACD receipt.

Implementation of Systematic Financial Screening in an Outpatient Breast Oncology Setting.

PURPOSE: Implementation of routine financial screening is a critical step toward mitigating financial toxicity. We evaluated the feasibility, sustainability, and acceptability of systematic financial screening in the outpatient breast oncology clinic at a large, urban cancer center. METHODS: We developed and implemented a stakeholder-informed process to systematically screen for financial hardship and worry. A 2-item assessment in English or Spanish was administered to patients through the electronic medical record portal or using paper forms. We evaluated completion rates and mode of completion. Through feedback from patients, clinicians, and staff, we identified strategies to improve completion rates and acceptability. RESULTS: From March, 2021, to February, 2022, 3,500 patients were seen in the breast oncology clinic. Of them, 39% (n = 1,349) responded to the screening items, either by paper or portal, 12% (n = 437) preferred not to answer, and the remaining 49% (n = 1,714) did not have data in their electronic health record, meaning they were not offered screening or did not complete the paper forms. Young adults (18-39 years) were more likely to respond compared with patients 70 years or older (61% v 30%, P < .01). English-preferring patients were more likely to complete the screening compared with those who preferred Spanish (46% v 28%, P < .01). Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to respond compared with Non-Hispanic Black patients and with Hispanic patients (46% v 39% v 32%, P < .01). Strategies to improve completion rates included partnering with staff to facilitate paper form administration, optimizing patient engagement with the portal, and clearly communicating the purpose of the screening. CONCLUSION: Systematic financial screening is feasible, and electronic data capture facilitates successful implementation. However, inclusive procedures that address language and technology preferences are needed to optimize screening.

Advancing Survivors Knowledge (ASK Study) of Skin Cancer Surveillance After Childhood Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

PURPOSE: To improve skin cancer screening among survivors of childhood cancer treated with radiotherapy where skin cancers make up 58% of all subsequent neoplasms. Less than 30% of survivors currently complete recommended skin cancer screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial evaluated patient and provider activation (PAE + MD) and patient and provider activation with teledermoscopy (PAE + MD + TD) compared with patient activation alone (PAE), which included print materials, text messaging, and a website on skin cancer risk factors and screening behaviors. Seven hundred twenty-eight participants from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (median age at baseline 44 years), age > 18 years, treated with radiotherapy as children, and without previous history of skin cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1). Primary outcomes included receiving a physician skin examination at 12 months and conducting a skin self-examination at 18 months after intervention. RESULTS: Rates of physician skin examinations increased significantly from baseline to 12 months in all three intervention groups: PAE, 24%-39%, relative risk [RR], 1.65, 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.08; PAE + MD, 24% to 39%, RR, 1.56, 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.97; PAE + MD + TD, 24% to 46%, RR, 1.89, 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.37. The increase in rates did not differ between groups (P = .49). Similarly, rates of skin self-examinations increased significantly from baseline to 18 months in all three groups: PAE, 29% to 50%, RR, 1.75, 95% CI, 1.42 to 2.16; PAE + MD, 31% to 58%, RR, 1.85, 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.26; PAE + MD + TD, 29% to 58%, RR, 1.95, 95% CI, 1.59 to 2.40, but the increase in rates did not differ between groups (P = .43). CONCLUSION: Although skin cancer screening rates increased more than 1.5-fold in each of the intervention groups, there were no differences between groups. Any of these interventions, if implemented, could improve skin cancer prevention behaviors among childhood cancer survivors.

Dostarlimab for recurrent mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with recurrent endometrial cancer treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel whose disease progresses have few effective treatment options. Based on promising clinical trial data, the anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) antibody dostarlimab was recently granted accelerated approval for endometrial cancer by the US Food and Drug Administration. We developed a decision model to examine the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab for patients with progressive/recurrent deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) endometrial cancer whose disease has progressed with first-line chemotherapy. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness study. POPULATION: Hypothetical cohort of 6000 women with progressive/recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. METHODS: The initial decision point in the Markov model was treatment with dostarlimab, pembrolizumab or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD). Model probabilities, and cost and utility values were derived with assumptions drawn from published literature. Effectiveness was estimated as average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to vary the assumptions across a range of plausible values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was the least costly strategy, at $55,732, followed by dostarlimab ($151,533) and pembrolizumab ($154,597). Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, PLD was cost-effective compared with dostarlimab, with an ICER of $331,913 per QALY gained for dostarlimab, whereas pembrolizumab was ruled out by extended dominance (less effective, more costly), compared with dostarlimab. In one-way sensitivity analyses, dostarlimab was cost-effective when its cost was reduced to $4905 (52% reduction). These results were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab is associated with greater survival compared with other treatments for women with recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Although the agent is substantially more costly, dostarlimab became cost-effective when its cost was reduced to $5489 per cycle.

Impact of a Hospital-Based Specialty Pharmacy in Partnership With a Care Coordination Organization on Time to Delivery and Receipt of Oral Anticancer Drugs.

PURPOSE: Oral anticancer drug (OACD) prescriptions require extensive coordination between providers and payers, which can delay drug receipt. Specialty pharmacies facilitate communication between multiple entities. In 2018, our cancer center partnered with a freestanding organization to implement a hospital-based specialty pharmacy (HB-SP). We evaluated the time to drug receipt (TTR) before and after HB-SP implementation. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. In fall 2018, a HB-SP was initiated. We collected patient sociodemographic, clinical, and prescription data. TTR was the number of days from OACD prescription to drug receipt. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with TTR ≤ 7 days before and after HB-SP implementation. RESULTS: In total, 954 patients were included, representing 1,102 new OACDs. The majority of prescribed drugs were targeted OACDs (56%, n = 617), and 71% (n = 779) required prior authorization. Of all prescriptions, 84% (n = 960) were successfully received with an overall median TTR of 7 days. In unadjusted analysis, HB-SP implementation, drug class, race and ethnicity, and prior authorization requirement were significantly associated with TTR. Adjusted analyses found that patients were more likely to receive their drugs ≤ 7 days after HB-SP implementation (53% v 47%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.68; P = .05). CONCLUSION: The implementation of a HB-SP in partnership with a collaborative care model contributed to a decrease in TTR for OACDs. This difference is in part attributable to improved care coordination and communication. A centralized approach may improve overall efficiency due to fewer practice disruptions.

Opportunistic Salpingectomy at the Time of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Ovarian Cancer Prevention: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to examine the utility and effectiveness of OS performed at the time of elective cholecystectomy [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LAP-CHOL)]. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: OS has been adopted as a strategy to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy and tubal sterilization, although the procedure is rarely performed as a risk reducing strategy during other abdominopelvic procedures. METHODS: A decision model was created to examine women 40, 50, and 60 years of age undergoing LAP-CHOL with or without OS. The lifetime risk of ovarian cancer was assumed to be 1.17%, 1.09%, and 0.92% for women age 40, 50, and 60 years, respectively. OS was estimated to provide a 65% reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer and to require 30 additional minutes of operative time. We estimated the cost, quality-adjusted life-years, ovarian cancer cases and deaths prevented with OS. RESULTS: The additional cost of OS at LAP-CHOL ranged from $1898 to 1978. In a cohort of 5000 women, OS reduced the number of ovarian cancer cases by 39, 36, and 30 cases and deaths by 12, 14, and 16 in the age 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old cohorts, respectively. OS during LAP-CHOL was cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,162 to 26,463 in the 3 age models. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for OS were less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years in 90.5% or more of 1000 simulations. CONCLUSIONS: OS at the time of LAP-CHOL may be a cost-effective strategy to prevent ovarian cancer among average risk women.

Factors Associated With Patients Not Receiving Oral Anticancer Drugs.

Importance: Oral anticancer drugs (OACDs) are increasingly prescribed for cancer treatment and require significant coordination of care. Retrospective studies suggest that 10% to 20% of OACD prescriptions are never received by the patients, but the reasons behind this are poorly understood. Objectives: To estimate the rate of failure to receive OACD prescriptions among patients with cancer and to examine the underlying reasons for this failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted among patients with cancer who were prescribed a new OACD from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, at an urban academic medical center. Data analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographic, clinical, and insurance data and OACD delivery dates were collected. The reasons for a failure to receive a prescribed OACD within 3 months were confirmed by manual review of medical records and were classified into 7 categories: clinical deterioration, financial access, clinician-directed change in decision-making, patient-directed change in decision-making, transfer of care, loss to follow-up, and unknown or other. A multivariable random-effects model was developed to identify factors associated with failure to receive a prescribed OACD. Results: The cohort included 1024 patients (538 men [53%]; mean [SD] age, 66.2 [13.9] years; 463 non-Hispanic White patients [45%], 140 non-Hispanic Black patients [14%], and 300 Hispanic patients [29%]), representing 1197 new OACD prescriptions. Of the 1197 prescriptions, 158 (13%) were categorized as having not been received by the patient. The most common reason for the failure to receive a prescribed OACD was due to patient and clinician decision-making (73 of 158 [46%]), and 20 cases (13%) in which prescriptions were not received were associated with financial access issues. In multivariable analysis, patients with a nonmetastatic solid malignant neoplasm were significantly less likely to not receive their OACDs than those with a hematologic malignant neoplasm (odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33-1.00]; P = .048). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients prescribed a new OACD found that 13% of prescriptions were not received. The failure to receive a prescribed OACD was most frequently due to a change in clinical decision-making or patient choice. Ultimately, the reasons for the failure to receive a prescribed OACD were multifactorial and may have been appropriate in some cases.

New and Persistent Sedative-Hypnotic Use After Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sedative-hypnotic medications are used to treat chemotherapy-related nausea, anxiety, and insomnia. However, prolonged sedative-hypnotic use can lead to dependence, misuse, and increased health-care use. We aimed to estimate the rates at which patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer become new persistent users of sedative-hypnotic medications, specifically benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics (Z-drugs). METHODS: Using the MarketScan health-care claims database, we identified sedative-hypnotic-naïve patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Patients who filled 1 and more prescriptions during chemotherapy and 2 and more prescriptions up to 1 year after chemotherapy were classified as new persistent users. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds of new persistent use and associated characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 22 039 benzodiazepine-naïve patients and 23 816 Z-drug-naïve patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2017. Among benzodiazepine-naïve patients, 6159 (27.9%) filled 1 and more benzodiazepine prescriptions during chemotherapy, and 963 of those (15.6%) went on to become new persistent users. Among Z-drug-naïve patients, 1769 (7.4%) filled 1 and more prescriptions during chemotherapy, and 483 (27.3%) became new persistent users. In both groups, shorter durations of chemotherapy and receipt of opioid prescriptions were associated with new persistent use. Medicaid insurance was associated with new persistent benzodiazepine use (odds ratio = 1.88, 95% confidence interval = 1.43 to 2.47) compared with commercial or Medicare insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who receive sedative-hypnotic medications during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer are at risk of becoming new persistent users of these medications after chemotherapy. Providers should ensure appropriate sedative-hypnotic use through tapering dosages and encouraging nonpharmacologic strategies when appropriate.

Study protocol of a multiphase optimization strategy trial (MOST) for delivery of smoking cessation treatment in lung cancer screening settings.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread agreement that the integration of cessation services in lung cancer screening (LCS) is essential for achieving the full benefits of LCS with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). There is a formidable knowledge gap about how to best design feasible, effective, and scalable cessation services in LCS facilities. A collective of NCI-funded clinical trials addressing this gap is the Smoking Cessation at Lung Examination (SCALE) Collaboration. METHODS: The Cessation and Screening to Save Lives (CASTL) trial seeks to advance knowledge about the reach, effectiveness, and implementation of tobacco treatment in lung cancer screening. We describe the rationale, design, evaluation plan, and interventions tested in this multiphase optimization strategy trial (MOST). A total of 1152 screening-eligible current smokers are being recruited from 18 LCS sites (n = 64/site) in both academic and community settings across the USA. Participants receive enhanced standard care (cessation advice and referral to the national Quitline) and are randomized to receive additional tobacco treatment components (motivational counseling, nicotine replacement patches/lozenges, message framing). The primary outcome is biochemically validated, abstinence at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes are self-reported smoking abstinence, quit attempts, and smoking reduction at 3 and 6 months. Guided by the Implementation Outcomes Framework (IOF), our evaluation includes measurement of implementation processes (reach, fidelity, acceptability, appropriateness, sustainability, and cost). CONCLUSION: We will identify effective treatment components for delivery by LCS sites. The findings will guide the assembly of an optimized smoking cessation package that achieves superior cessation outcomes. Future trials can examine the strategies for wider implementation of tobacco treatment in LDCT-LCS sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03315910.

Efficacy of a password-protected, pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity to enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a public health crisis, and unused postoperative opioids are an important source. Although 70% of pills prescribed go unused, only 9% are discarded. This study evaluated whether an inexpensive pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity could enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery. METHODS: A prospective pilot study was conducted among adult patients who underwent major cancer-related surgery. Patients received opioid prescriptions in a mechanical device (Addinex) linked to a smartphone application (app). The app provided passwords on a prescriber-defined schedule. Patients could enter a password into the device and receive a pill if the prescribed time had elapsed. Patients were instructed to return the device and any unused pills in a disposal mailer. The primary end point was feasibility of device return, defined as ≥50% of patients returning the device within 6 weeks of surgery. Also explored was total pill use and return as well as patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Among 30 patients enrolled, the majority (n = 24, 80%) returned the device, and 17 (57%) returned it within 6 weeks of surgery. In total, 567 opioid pills were prescribed and 170 (30%) were used. Of 397 excess pills, 332 (84% of unused pills, 59% of all pills prescribed) were disposed of by mail. Among 19 patients who obtained opioids from the device, most (n = 14, 74%) felt the benefits of the device justified the added steps involved. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an inexpensive pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity is a feasible strategy to enhance disposal of unused postoperative opioids.

A model for an undergraduate research experience program in quantitative sciences.

We developed a summer research experience program within a freestanding comprehensive cancer center to cultivate undergraduate students with an interest in and an aptitude for quantitative sciences focused on oncology. This unconventional location for an undergraduate program is an ideal setting for interdisciplinary training in the intersection of oncology, statistics, and epidemiology. This paper describes the development and implementation of a hands-on research experience program in this unique environment. Core components of the program include faculty-mentored projects, instructional programs to improve research skills and domain knowledge, and professional development activities. We discuss key considerations such as effective partnership between research and administrative units, recruiting students, and identifying faculty mentors with quantitative projects. We describe evaluation approaches and discuss post-program outcomes and lessons learned. In its initial two years, the program successfully improved students' perception of competence gained in research skills and statistical knowledge across several knowledge domains. The majority of students also went on to pursue graduate degrees in a quantitative field or work in oncology-centric academic research roles. Our research-based training model can be adapted by a variety of organizations motivated to develop a summer research experience program in quantitative sciences for undergraduate students.

Implementing a mHealth intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among high-risk cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors treated with any dose of radiation to the abdomen, pelvis, spine, or total body irradiation (TBI) are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population. Since earlier detection of CRC is strongly associated with improved survival, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines recommend that these high-risk cancer survivors begin CRC screening via a colonoscopy or a multitarget stool DNA test at the age of 30 years or 5 years following the radiation treatment (whichever occurs last). However, only 37% (95% CI 34.1-39.9%) of high-risk survivors adhere to CRC surveillance. The Activating cancer Survivors and their Primary care providers (PCP) to Increase colorectal cancer Screening (ASPIRES) study is designed to assess the efficacy of an intervention to increase the rate of CRC screening among high-risk cancer survivors through interactive, educational text-messages and resources provided to participants, and CRC screening resources provided to their PCPs. METHODS: ASPIRES is a three-arm, hybrid type II effectiveness and implementation study designed to simultaneously evaluate the efficacy of an intervention and assess the implementation process among participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), a North American longitudinal cohort of childhood cancer survivors. The Control (C) arm participants receive electronic resources, participants in Treatment arm 1 receive electronic resources as well as interactive text messages, and participants in Treatment arm 2 receive electronic educational resources, interactive text messages, and their PCP's receive faxed materials. We describe our plan to collect quantitative (questionnaires, medical records, study logs, CCSS data) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) intervention outcome data as well as quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (interviews) data on the implementation process. DISCUSSION: There is a critical need to increase the rate of CRC screening among high-risk cancer survivors. This hybrid effectiveness-implementation study will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an mHealth intervention consisting of interactive text-messages, electronic tools, and primary care provider resources. Findings from this research will advance CRC prevention efforts by enhancing understanding of the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention and highlighting factors that determine the successful implementation of this intervention within the high-risk cancer survivor population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05084833 ) on October 20, 2021.

New and persistent controlled substance use among patients undergoing mastectomy and reconstructive surgery.

PURPOSE: Prolonged use of controlled substances can place patients at increased risk of dependence and complications. Women who have mastectomy and reconstructive surgery (M + R) may be vulnerable to becoming new persistent users (NPUs) of opioid and sedative-hypnotic medications. METHODS: Using the MarketScan health-care claims database, we identified opioid- and sedative-hypnotic-naïve women who had M + R from 2008 to 2017. Women who filled ≥ 1 peri-operative prescription and ≥ 2 post-operative prescriptions within one year after surgery were classified as NPUs. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate rates of new persistent use and predictive factors. Risk summary scores were created based on the sum of associated factors. RESULTS: We evaluated 23,025 opioid-naïve women and 25,046 sedative-hypnotic-naïve women. We found that 17,174 opioid-naïve women filled a peri-operative opioid prescription, and of those, 2962 (17.2%) became opioid NPUs post-operatively. Additionally, 9426 sedative-hypnotic-naïve women filled a peri-operative sedative-hypnotic prescription, and of those, 1612 (17.1%) became sedative-hypnotic NPUs. Development of new persistent sedative-hypnotic use was associated with age ≤ 49 [OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.40-2.24)] and age 50-64 [1.60 (1.27-2.03)] compared to age ≥ 65; Medicaid insurance [2.34 (1.40-3.90)]; southern residence [1.42 (1.22-1.64)]; breast cancer diagnosis [2.24 (1.28-3.91)]; and chemotherapy [2.17 (1.94-2.42)]. Risk of NPU increased with higher risk score. Women with ≥ 3 of these risk factors were three times more likely to become sedative-hypnotic NPUs than patients with 0 or 1 factors [2.94 (2.51-3.43)]. Comparable findings were seen regarding new persistent opioid use. CONCLUSION: Women who have M + R are at risk of developing both new persistent opioid and new persistent sedative-hypnotic use. A patient's risk of becoming an NPU increases as their number of risk factors increases. Non-pharmacologic strategies are needed to manage pain and anxiety following cancer-related surgery.

Comparison of Cochlear Implant Device Fixation-Well Drilling Versus Subperiosteal Pocket. A Cost Effectiveness, Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical characteristics and complications between well drilling (WD) and subperiosteal pocket techniques (SPT) for receiver/stimulator (R/S) fixation of cochlear implant (CI), and conduct cost-effectiveness analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study, decision-analysis model. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Three-hundred and eighty-eight CI recipients with a minimum of 6-months follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: CI surgery using either WD or SPT for R/S fixation. A decision-analysis model was designed using data from a systematic literature review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical operation time, rates of major and minor long-term complications were compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness was also estimated, comparing the two methods of fixation. RESULTS: We compared 179 WD with 209 SPT. Surgery time was significantly shorter in SPT (148 versus 169 min, p = 0.001) and remained significant after adjustment for possible confounders. Higher rates of major complications requiring surgical intervention were found with SPT (10.5% versus 4.5%, p = 0.042), however, the difference was not significant after adjusting for follow-up time (47.8 versus 32.5 months for SPT, WD respectively; p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for WD (compared with SPT) was $48,795 per major complication avoided, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $47,700 (average cost of 2 h revision surgery). CONCLUSIONS: SPT was found to be faster but potentially risks more complications, particularly relating to device failure. Further long-term studies are required to validate these differences. Based on data from the current literature, neither of the methods is compellingly cost-effective over the other, and surgeons can base their choice on personal preference, comfort, and previous training.