Factors associated with worsening sexual function during adjuvant endocrine therapy in a prospective clinic-based cohort of women with early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Sexual function problems are common but under-reported among women receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Worsening scores on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may identify those at risk for sexual function problems during treatment. We performed a secondary analysis of prospectively collected PROs in women receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy to identify factors associated with worsening sexual function. METHODS: Women with stage 0-III breast cancer initiating adjuvant endocrine therapy participating in a prospective cohort completed PROs at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. Sexual function was evaluated by the MOS-SP measure. Other measures included PROMIS pain interference, fatigue, depression, anxiety, physical function, and sleep disturbance and the Endocrine Symptom Subscale of the FACT-ES. We evaluated associations between score worsening of at least the minimal important difference (MID) in PROMIS T-scores (4 points) and FACT-ES scores (5 points) with score worsening of at least the MID in MOS-SP scores (8 points) using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 300 participants, 45.7% experienced ≥ 8-point worsening of MOS-SP score at any time point compared to baseline. Worsening endocrine symptoms (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22-1.49, p < 0.001), worsening physical function (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.18, p = 0.06), and prior mastectomy (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.94-2.23, p = 0.09) were associated with MOS-SP score worsening by at least the MID. CONCLUSION: Worsening endocrine symptoms and physical function identified on PROs are associated with worsening sexual function during adjuvant endocrine therapy. Routine assessment of these domains with PROs may identify women at risk for sexual function problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01937052; Date of Registration: 09/09/2013.

Late effects in a high-risk population of breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To better understand the impact of cancer and treatment on outcomes and guide program development, we evaluated breast cancer survivors at risk for long-term medical and psychosocial issues who participated in survivorship care visits (SVs) at Johns Hopkins Hospital. METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey study of women with stage I-III breast cancer who participated in SVs from 2010-2016. The same 56-item questionnaire administered at SV and follow-up included an assessment of symptoms, social factors, demographics, anxiety, depression, and comorbidities. We added the Godin Exercise questionnaire to the follow-up. RESULTS: In 2018, 74 participants were identified as disease-free and mailed a follow-up survey; 52 (70.3%) completed the survey. At a median follow-up time of 3.1 years after diagnosis, participants were less likely to be employed (54% vs. 67%) than at the SV. About two-thirds were sedentary, and this was associated with high body mass index (p = 0.02). Sufficiently active participants (≥ 150 min per week of moderate-intensity activity) were less likely to report pain (p = 0.02) or fatigue (p = 0.001). Although 19% had moderate/severe anxiety or depression at follow-up, participants who reported employment satisfaction were less likely to be depressed (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of issues faced by survivors is critical for enhancing care and developing models to identify patients who might benefit most from targeted long-term interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Interventions to address physical activity, persistent symptoms, and mental health are critical for breast cancer survivors.

A PRO-cision medicine intervention to personalize cancer care using patient-reported outcomes: intervention development and feasibility-testing.

PURPOSE: PRO-cision medicine refers to personalizing care using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We developed and feasibility-tested a PRO-cision Medicine remote PRO monitoring intervention designed to identify symptoms and reduce the frequency of routine in-person visits. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with metastatic breast (n = 15) and prostate (n = 15) cancer patients and clinicians (n = 10) to elicit their perspectives on a PRO-cision Medicine intervention's design, value, and concerns. We then feasibility-tested the intervention in 24 patients with metastatic breast cancer over 6-months. We obtained feedback via end-of-study surveys (patients) and interviews (clinicians). RESULTS: Focus group and interview participants reported that remote PRO symptom reporting could alert clinicians to issues and avoid unneeded/unwanted visits. However, some patients did not perceive avoiding visits as beneficial. Clinicians were concerned about workflow. In the feasibility-test, 24/236 screened patients (10%) enrolled. Many patients were already being seen less frequently than monthly (n = 97) or clinicians did not feel comfortable seeing them less frequently than monthly (n = 31). Over the 6-month study, there were 75 total alerts from 392 PRO symptom assessments (average 0.19 alert/assessment). Patients had an average of 4 in-person visits (vs. expected 6.5 without the intervention). Patients (n = 19/24) reported high support on the end-of-study survey, with more than 80% agreeing with positive statements about the intervention. Clinician end-of-study interviews (n = 11/14) suggested that PRO symptom monitoring be added to clinic visits, rather than replacing them, and noted the increasing role of telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore combining remote PRO symptom monitoring with telemedicine and in-person visits.

The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium: Optimizing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials has enormous potential to promote patient-centred care, but for this potential to be realized, the patient-reported outcomes must be captured effectively and communicated clearly. Over the past decade, methodologic tools have been developed to inform the design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials. We formed the PROTEUS-Trials Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users and Stakeholders) to disseminate and implement these methodologic tools. METHODS: PROTEUS-Trials are engaging with patient, clinician, research, and regulatory stakeholders from 27 organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe to develop both organization-specific and cross-cutting strategies for implementing and disseminating the methodologic tools. Guided by the Knowledge-to-Action framework, we conducted consortium-wide webinars and meetings, as well as individual calls with participating organizations, to develop a workplan, which we are currently executing. RESULTS: Six methodologic tools serve as the foundation for PROTEUS-Trials dissemination and implementation efforts: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for writing protocols with patient-reported outcomes, the International Society for Quality of Life Research Minimum Standards for selecting a patient-reported outcome measure, Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium recommendations for patient-reported outcome data analysis, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for reporting clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes, recommendations for the graphic display of patient-reported outcome data, and a Clinician's Checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. The PROTEUS-Trials website (www.TheProteusConsortium.org) serves as a central repository for the methodologic tools and associated resources. To date, we have developed (1) a roadmap to visually display where each of the six methodologic tools applies along the clinical trial trajectory, (2) web tutorials that provide guidance on the methodologic tools at different levels of detail, (3) checklists to provide brief summaries of each tool's recommendations, (4) a handbook to provide a self-guided approach to learning about the tools and recommendations, and (5) publications that address key topics related to patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. We are also conducting organization-specific activities, including meetings, presentations, workshops, and webinars to publicize the existence of the methodologic tools and the PROTEUS-Trials resources. Work to develop communications strategies to ensure that PROTEUS-Trials reach key audiences with relevant information about patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and PROTEUS-Trials is ongoing. DISCUSSION: The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium aims to help researchers generate patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials to (1) enable investigators, regulators, and policy-makers to take the patient perspective into account when conducting research and making decisions; (2) help patients understand treatment options and make treatment decisions; and (3) inform clinicians' discussions with patients regarding treatment options. In these ways, the PROTEUS Consortium promotes patient-centred research and care.

International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide patients' perspectives regarding symptoms, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with treatments. A range of guidance documents exist for the selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, and it is unclear to what extent these documents present consistent recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a targeted review of publications and regulatory guidance documents that advise on the selection of PROMs for use in clinical trials. A total of seven guidance documents from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and scientific consortia from professional societies were included in the final review. Guidance documents were analyzed using a content analysis approach comparing them with minimum standards recommended by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. RESULTS: Overall there was substantial agreement between guidance regarding the appropriate considerations for PROM selection within a clinical trial. Variations among the guidance primarily related to differences in their format and differences in the perspectives and mandates of their respective organizations. Whereas scientific consortia tended to produce checklist or rating-type guidance, regulatory groups tended to use more narrative-based approaches sometimes supplemented with lists of criteria. CONCLUSION: The consistency in recommendations suggests an emerging consensus in the field and supports use of any of the major guidance documents available to guide PROM selection for clinical trials without concern of conflicting recommendations. This work represents an important first step in the international PROTEUS Consortium's ongoing efforts to optimize the use of PROs in clinical trials.

Breast cancer survivorship care plans: what are they covering and how well do they align with national guidelines?

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) provide key information about cancer treatment history and follow-up recommendations. We describe the completeness of breast cancer SCPs and evaluate guideline concordance of follow-up recommendations. METHODS: We analyzed 149 breast cancer SCPs from two sites, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, surveillance plans, and health promotion advice. SCP recommendations and provided information were compared to American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in > 90% of the plans included patient age; relevant providers; cancer stage; treatment details; and physical exam, mammogram, and health promotion recommendations. SCP components completed less frequently included post-treatment symptoms/side effects (67%). All SCPs at the community site were uniform but had the potential for oversurveillance if visits occurred every 3 months in years 1-2 or every 6 months in years 3-5 with multiple cancer providers. The academic site recommended three predominant patterns of follow-up: (1) primary care provider every 6-12 months; (2) cancer team every 3-6 months (year 1), every 6-12 months (years 4-5); and (3) alternating oncology providers every 3-6 months (years 1-2) then every 6 months. Compared to guidelines, these patterns recommend under- and oversurveillance at various times. Mammography recommendations showed guideline concordance (annual) for 84%, oversurveillance for 10%, and were incomplete for 6%. SCPs of only 12/79 (15%) women on aromatase inhibitors recommended guideline-concordant bone density testing. CONCLUSIONS: SCP content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information but has follow-up recommendation gaps. Efforts to improve follow-up recommendations are needed.

Sharing in care: engaging care partners in the care and communication of breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Family is often overlooked in cancer care. We developed a patient-family agenda setting intervention to engage family in cancer care communication. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (NCT03283553) of patients on active treatment for breast cancer and their family "care partner." Intervention dyads (n = 69) completed a self-administered checklist to clarify care partner roles, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate MyChart patient portal access. Control dyads (n = 63) received usual care. We assessed intervention acceptability and initial effects from post-visit surveys and MyChart utilization at 6 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, most patients (89.4%) but few care partners (1.5%) were registered for MyChart. Most patients (79.4%) wanted their care partner to have access to their records and 39.4% of care partners reported accessing MyChart. In completing the checklist, patients and care partners endorsed active communication roles for the care partner and identified a similar visit agenda: most (> 90%) reported the checklist was easy, useful, and recommended it to others. At 6 weeks, intervention (vs control) care partners were more likely to be registered for MyChart (75.4% vs 1.6%; p < 0.001), to have logged in (43.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001) and viewed clinical notes (30.4% vs 0%; p < 0.001), but were no more likely to exchange direct messages with clinicians (1.5% vs 0%; p = 0.175). No differences in patients' MyChart use were observed, but intervention patients more often viewed clinical notes (50.7% vs 9.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A patient-family agenda setting intervention was acceptable and affected online practices of cancer patients and care partners.

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into the Care of People With Advanced Cancer-A Practical Guide.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being increasingly integrated into routine clinical practice to enhance individual patient care. This has been driven by recognition of the benefits of PROs in enhancing symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival, and reductions in acute health care utilization. These benefits are reflected in the emergence of value-based health care initiatives incorporating PRO symptom monitoring such as the Enhancing Oncology Model in the United States. However, implementing PROs can be challenging and it can be difficult to know where to begin to select appropriate PROs, and effectively display and appropriately interpret PRO data. This manuscript summarizes an educational session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, which provided practical guidance to clinicians seeking to incorporate PROs into the care of people with advanced cancer. We focus on why it is important to collect PROs in routine care from a patient's perspective, how to select PROs for symptom monitoring (including using static patient-reported outcome measures and newer item libraries), and highlight key pearls and pitfalls in the display and interpretation of PROs. We highlight the breadth of existing resources available to guide clinicians in PRO implementation.

Improving biobehavioral health in younger breast cancer survivors: Pathways to Wellness trial secondary outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Pathways to Wellness trial tested the efficacy of 2 interventions for younger breast cancer survivors: mindful awareness practices (MAPs) and survivorship education (SE). This planned secondary analysis examines intervention effects on stress, positive psychological outcomes, and inflammation (Clincaltrials.gov NCT03025139). METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before age 50 years who had completed treatment and had elevated depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of MAPs, SE, or wait-list control (WLC). Assessments conducted at pre- and postintervention and at 3- and 6-month follow-up measured general stress perceptions, cancer-related intrusive thoughts and worry, positive affect, meaning and peace in life, altruism and empathy, and markers of inflammation. Analyses compared change in outcomes over time in each intervention group relative to WLC using linear mixed models. RESULTS: A total 247 women were randomly assigned to MAPs (n = 85), SE (n = 81), or WLC (n = 81). MAPs statistically significantly decreased intrusive thoughts and worry at postintervention and 3-month follow-up relative to WLC (P < .027) and statistically significantly increased positive affect and meaning and peace at postintervention, with positive affect persisting at 3-month follow-up (P < .027). SE statistically significantly decreased intrusive thoughts at 3-month follow-up and statistically significantly increased positive affect at 6-month follow-up relative to WLC (P < .01). Proinflammatory gene expression increased in WLC relative to MAPs (P = .016) but did not differ from SE. There were no intervention effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSION: MAPs had beneficial effects on psychological and immune outcomes in younger breast cancer survivors and is a promising approach for enhancing biobehavioral health.

Feasibility of Symptom Monitoring During the First Year of Endocrine Therapy for Early Breast Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes Collected via Smartphone App.

PURPOSE: Treatment-associated symptoms drive early discontinuation of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for breast cancer. We hypothesized that symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) during adjuvant ET will enhance symptom detection, symptom management, and persistence. METHODS: Eligible patients were initiating ET for stage 0-III breast cancer. Participants completed ePRO surveys via smartphone at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Measures included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, and Vaginal Discomfort; plus Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items assessing joint pain, hot flashes, vaginal dryness, concentration problems, and memory problems. Scores surpassing prespecified thresholds triggered alerts, and recommended symptom management pathways were provided to clinicians. The primary objective was to evaluate feasibility, assessed by survey completion rates, with targets of >65% for the baseline survey and ≥1 follow-up survey during the first 6 months. Secondary objectives included 12-month ET discontinuation rate (target: ≤15%), describing symptoms and evaluating pathway implementation. RESULTS: Among 250 participants, 73.2% completed the baseline survey and 69.6% completed ≥1 follow-up survey during the first 6 months. Thirty-one percent of participants had ≥1 symptom alert at baseline and 74% had ≥1 symptom alert during follow-up. The proportions of participants for whom pathway-concordant symptom management was documented at each time point ranged from 12.8% to 36.6%. Twenty-eight participants (11.2%) discontinued ET by 12 months. CONCLUSION: Symptom monitoring with ePROs during adjuvant ET is feasible. Despite infrequent documentation of pathway-concordant symptom management after symptom alerts, ePROs were associated with favorable short-term ET persistence.

Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse. METHODS: Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms. RESULTS: Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.

Implementing survivorship care planning in two contrasting health systems: lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended to promote appropriate follow-up care, but implementation has been limited. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing three SCP delivery models in two health systems. We utilize mixed methods to compare the feasibility and participants' perceived value of the three models. METHODS: Patients completing treatment for stage I-III breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer from one urban-academic and one rural community cancer center were randomized to (1) mailed SCP, (2) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit, or (3) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit plus 6-month follow-up. Clinics had flexibility in intervention implementation. Quantitative data summarize intervention fidelity and protocol deviations. Qualitative interview data provide patients' perspectives on feasibility and intervention value. RESULTS: Of 475 eligible participants approached, 378 (79%) were randomized. Of 345 SCPs delivered, 265 (76.8%) were by protocol. Protocol deviations were more common at the urban-academic center. In post-study qualitative interviews, participants recalled little about the SCP document or visit(s). SCPs were valued for information and care coordination, although their static nature was limiting, and sometimes SCP information differed from that provided elsewhere. Visits were opportunities for care and reassurance, but time and distance to the clinic were barriers. CONCLUSIONS: SCP provision was challenging. Patients were interested in SCP, but not necessarily additional survivorship visits, particularly at the urban-academic hospital. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings suggest that patients value careful consideration of health care needs during the transition out of treatment; SCP documents are one element of this. For many patients, models without additional visits and dynamic SCPs may be preferred.

Simplifying Survivorship Care Planning: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 3 Care Plan Delivery Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning. METHODS: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.

Screening for Depression in Younger Breast Cancer Survivors: Outcomes From Use of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire.

Background: Major cancer organizations recommend depression screening in patients and survivors. The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is often suggested, with limited information about its use. Methods: Enrollment data collected from younger breast cancer survivors participating in a behavioral intervention trial were used to examine the relationship between PHQ-9 scores (range = 0-27), patient characteristics, and responses to standardized psychosocial assessment tools. Major depressive disorder criterion was met if responses to the first 2 PHQ-9 items (range = 0-6) were 3 or greater. The sample was categorized by total PHQ-9 scores: less than 5 (minimal depressive symptoms), 5-9 (mild to moderate depressive symptoms), and 10 or greater (moderate to severe depression). PHQ-9 category associations with medical, demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral characteristics were examined using analysis of variance for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. Results: A total of 231 women met the study prescreening eligibility criterion of mild depressive symptoms and enrolled in the study. On average, they were 45.2 years old and 2.6 years since diagnosis. At enrollment, 22.1% met the screening criterion for possible major depressive disorder; among those with PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater, 58.3% met this criterion. Anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and intrusive thoughts about cancer were frequent and were associated with depressive symptom severity (all P < .001). In contrast, neither demographic nor cancer treatment characteristics were associated with depressive symptoms. Conclusions: Depressive symptoms in this selected sample of younger breast cancer survivors were independent of demographic characteristics or cancer treatment history, suggesting that depression screening is necessary to detect uncontrolled depressive symptoms.

Targeting Depressive Symptoms in Younger Breast Cancer Survivors: The Pathways to Wellness Randomized Controlled Trial of Mindfulness Meditation and Survivorship Education.

PURPOSE: Younger women are at risk for depression and related symptoms following breast cancer. The Pathways to Wellness study, a randomized, multi-institution, three-arm trial, tested the efficacy of two behavioral interventions for younger breast cancer survivors with elevated depressive symptoms: mindful awareness practices (MAPs) and survivorship education (SE) (Clincaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03025139). METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer at or before 50 years of age who had completed treatment and had elevated depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of MAPs, SE, or wait-list control (WLC). Assessments were conducted preintervention and postintervention and at 3-month and 6-month postintervention follow-ups. Analyses compared each intervention to WLC using linear mixed models. The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms from preintervention to postintervention on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale; secondary outcomes included change in fatigue, insomnia, and vasomotor symptoms. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-seven women (median age = 46 years) were randomly assigned to MAPs (n = 85), SE (n = 81), or WLC (n = 81). MAPs and SE led to significant decreases in depressive symptoms from preintervention to postintervention relative to WLC (mean change relative to WLC [95% CI]: MAPs, -4.7 [-7.5 to -1.9]; SE, -4.0 [-6.9 to -1.1]), which persisted at 6-month follow-up for MAPs (mean change relative to WLC [95% CI]: MAPs, -3.7 [-6.6 to -0.8]; SE, -2.8 [-5.9 to 0.2]). MAPs, but not SE, also had beneficial effects on fatigue, insomnia, and vasomotor symptoms that persisted at 6-month follow-up (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Mindfulness meditation and SE reduced depressive symptoms in younger breast cancer survivors. These interventions can be widely disseminated over virtual platforms and have significant potential benefit for quality of life and overall survivorship in this vulnerable group.

A randomized intervention involving family to improve communication in breast cancer care.

We examined the effects of a communication intervention to engage family care partners on patient portal (MyChart) use, illness understanding, satisfaction with cancer care, and symptoms of anxiety in a single-blind randomized trial of patients in treatment for breast cancer. Patient-family dyads were recruited and randomly assigned a self-administered checklist to clarify the care partner role, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate MyChart access (n = 63) or usual care (n = 55). Interviews administered at baseline, 3, 9 (primary endpoint), and 12 months assessed anxiety (GAD-2), mean FAMCARE satisfaction, and complete illness understanding (4 of 4 items correct). Time-stamped electronic interactions measured MyChart use. By 9 months, more intervention than control care partners registered for MyChart (77.8 % vs 1.8%; p < 0.001) and logged into the patient's account (61.2% vs 0% of those registered; p < 0.001), but few sent messages to clinicians (6.1% vs 0%; p = 0.247). More intervention than control patients viewed clinical notes (60.3% vs 32.7%; p = 0.003). No pre-post group differences in patient or care partner symptoms of anxiety, satisfaction, or complete illness understanding were found. Intervention patients whose care partners logged into MyChart were more likely to have complete illness understanding at 9 months (changed 70.0% to 80.0% vs 69.7% to 54.6%; p = 0.03); symptoms of anxiety were numerically lower (16.7% to 6.7% vs 15.2% to 15.2%; p = 0.24) and satisfaction numerically higher (15.8-16.2 vs 18.0-17.4; p = 0.25). A brief, scalable communication intervention led to greater care partner MyChart use and increased illness understanding among patients with more engaged care partners (NCT03283553).

Management of Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Stage- and Subtype-Specific Approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly changed delivery of cancer care. Many nonurgent surgeries are delayed to preserve hospital resources, and patient visits to health care settings are limited to reduce exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Providers must carefully weigh risks and benefits of delivering immunosuppressive therapy during the pandemic. For breast cancer, a key difference is increased use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy due to deferral of many breast surgeries during the pandemic. In some cases, this necessitates increased use of genomic tumor profiling on core biopsy specimens to guide neoadjuvant therapy decisions. Breast cancer treatment during the pandemic requires multidisciplinary input and varies according to stage, tumor biology, comorbidities, age, patient preferences, and available hospital resources. We present here the Johns Hopkins Women's Malignancies Program approach to breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include algorithms based on tumor biology and extent of disease that guide management decisions during the pandemic. These algorithms emphasize medical oncology treatment decisions and demonstrate how we have operationalized the general treatment recommendations during the pandemic proposed by national groups, such as the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. Our recommendations can be adapted by other institutions and medical oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources. Guidelines such as these will be important as we continue to balance treatment of breast cancer against risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection until approval of a vaccine.

Breast cancer survivorship care beyond local and systemic therapy.

Despite persistent inequities in access to care and treatments, advances in combined modality care have led to a steady improvement in outcomes for breast cancer patients across the globe. When estimating the magnitude of clinical benefit of therapies, providers and patients must contend with a multitude of factors that impact treatment decisions and can have long-term effects on quality of life and survival. These include commonly described early toxicities, like aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal syndrome and neuropathy. But longer-term comorbidities often observed among cancer survivors including weight gain, obesity, infertility, psychological distress, sexual dysfunction, second cancers, bone loss, and body image issues can have lasting effects on quality of life. Equally important, system-level factors such as access to care and resource allocation can have a systemic impact on survival and on the quality of survivorship. Financial toxicity including underemployment can have a lasting impact on patients and caregivers. The resulting disparities in access to treatment can help explain much of the observed variability in outcomes, even within high-income countries like the US. This article revisits some of secondary effects from therapies discussed in a prior 2015 review article, along with other impediments to the optimal delivery of breast cancer care that can affect patients anywhere.

Age at menarche and weight concerns in relation to smoking trajectory and dependence among adolescent girls enrolled in a smoking cessation trial.

Many girls adopt dieting and other practices (i.e. cigarette smoking) to control weight during puberty. This analysis explored the relationship between age at menarche and onset of daily smoking, and whether this relationship was influenced by weight concerns among treatment seeking female adolescents. The sample consisted of 71 participants enrolled in a smoking cessation trial (age 15.2+/-1.3 years; 74.7% European American, baseline BMI 24.7+/-5.4, age at menarche 11.7+/-1.3 years, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence score 7.0+/-1.2). Over 60% of participants reported weight concerns at baseline, based on responses to the Eating Disorders module from the Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents. Linear regression analyses revealed a significant association between age at menarche and age of onset of daily smoking (beta=0.18+/-0.09, p=0.038). Having weight concerns did not modify the relationships between age at menarche and smoking trajectory/severity or abstinence. Findings support previous research showing that early maturation represents a risk factor for substance use. Further study in larger samples that include non-treatment-seeking adolescent female smokers is warranted.