Association of Sarcopenia With Toxicity-Related Discontinuation of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Women With Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Sarcopenia, an age-related decline in muscle mass and physical function, is associated with increased toxicity and worse outcomes in women with breast cancer (BC). Sarcopenia may contribute to toxicity-related early discontinuation of adjuvant endocrine  therapy (aET) in women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) BC but remains poorly characterized. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included consecutive women with stage 0-II HR+ BC who received breast conserving therapy (lumpectomy and radiation therapy) and aET from 2011 to 2017 with a 5-year follow-up. Skeletal muscle index (SMI, cm2/m2) was analyzed using a deep learning model on routine cross-sectional radiation simulation imaging; sarcopenia was dichotomized according to previously validated reports. The primary endpoint was toxicity-related aET discontinuation; logistic regression analysis evaluated associations between SMI/sarcopenia and aET discontinuation. Cox regression analysis evaluated associations with time to aET toxicity, ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 305 women (median follow-up, 89 months) were included with a median age of 67 years and early-stage BC (12% stage 0, 65% stage I). A total of 60 (20%) women experienced toxicity-related aET discontinuation. Sarcopenia was associated with toxicity-related early discontinuation of aET (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .036) and shorter time to aET toxicity (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .031). SMI or sarcopenia were not independently associated with IBTR or DFS; toxicity-related aET discontinuation was associated with worse IBTR (HR, 9.47; P = .002) and worse DFS (HR, 4.53; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with early-stage HR+ BC who receive adjuvant radiation therapy and hormone therapy, sarcopenia is associated with toxicity-related early discontinuation of aET. Further studies should validate these findings in women who did not receive adjuvant radiation therapy. These high-risk patients may be candidates for aggressive symptom management and/or alternative treatment strategies to improve outcomes.

Utilization of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform to Evaluate the Psychosocial and Quality-of-Life Experience Among a Community Sample of Ovarian Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Novel distress screening approaches using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurements are critical for the provision of comprehensive quality community cancer care. Using an ePRO platform, the prevalence of psychosocial factors (distress, post-traumatic growth, resilience, and financial stress) affecting quality of life in ovarian cancer survivors (OCSs) was examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional OCS sample from the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition-Illinois Chapter completed web-based clinical, sociodemographic, and psychosocial assessment using well-validated measures: Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale-anxiety/depression, Post-traumatic Growth Inventory, Brief Resilience Scale, comprehensive score for financial toxicity, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O/health-related quality of life [HRQOL]). Correlational analyses between variables were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent (174 of 300) of OCS completed virtual assessment: median age 59 (range 32-83) years, 94.2% White, 60.3% married/in domestic partnership, 59.6% stage III-IV, 48.8% employed full-time/part-time, 55.2% had college/postgraduate education, 71.9% completed primary treatment, and median disease duration 6 (range < 1-34) years. On average, OCS endorsed normal levels of anxiety (mean ± standard deviation = 6.9 ± 3.8), depression (4.1 ± 3.6), mild total distress (10.9 ± 8.9), high post-traumatic growth (72.6 ± 21.5), normal resilience (3.7 ± 0.72), good FACT-O-HRQOL (112.6 ± 22.8), and mild financial stress (26 ± 10). Poor FACT-O emotional well-being was associated with greater participant distress (P < .001). Partial correlational analyses revealed negative correlations between FACT-O-HRQOL and anxiety (r = -0.65, P < .001), depression (r = -0.76, P < .001), and total distress (r = -0.92, P < .001). Yet, high FACT-O-HRQOL was positively correlated with post-traumatic coping (r = 0.27; P = .006) and resilience (r = 0.63; P < .001). CONCLUSION: ePRO assessment is feasible for identification of unique psychosocial factors, for example, financial toxicity and resilience, affecting HRQOL for OCS. Future investigation should explore large-scale, longitudinal ePRO assessment of the OCS psychosocial experience using innovative measures and community-based advocacy populations.

Anxiety Shapes Expectations of Therapeutic Benefit in Phase I Trials for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Spousal Caregivers.

PURPOSE: Advanced cancer patients (ACP) hope to receive significant therapeutic benefit from phase I trials despite terminal disease and presumed symptom burdens. We examined associations between symptom burdens and expectations of therapeutic benefit for ACP and spousal caregivers (SC) during phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort of ACP-SC enrolled in phase I trials was assessed at baseline and one month using symptom burden measures evaluating depression, state-trait anxiety, quality of life, global health, post-traumatic coping, and marital adjustment. Interviews evaluated expectations of benefit. RESULTS: Fifty-two phase I ACP and 52 SC (N = 104) were separately assessed and interviewed at baseline and one month. Total population demographics included the following: median age 61 years (28-78), 50% male, 100% married, 90% White, and 46% ≥ college education. At T1, ACP reported symptoms of mild state anxiety, mild trait anxiety, poor global health, and quality of life. SC reported moderate state and mild trait anxiety and good global health with little disability at baseline. State anxiety was a significant predictor of ACP expectations for phase I producing the following therapeutic benefits: stabilization (P = .01), shrinkage (P < .01), and remission (P = .04). Regression analyses also revealed negative associations between SC expectation for stabilization and SC anxiety: state (P = .01) and trait (P = .02). ACP quality of life was also negatively associated with SC expectations for stabilization (P = .02) and shrinkage (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Anxiety, both state and trait, impacts couples' beliefs regarding the likelihood of therapeutic benefit from phase I trial participation.

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising for Cancer Centers and Institutes: Ethical Dilemmas and Practical Implications.

In the United States, many cancer centers advertise their clinical services directly to the public. Although there are potential public benefits from such advertising, including increased patient awareness of treatment options and improved access to care and clinical trials, there is also potential for harm through misinformation, provision of false hope, inappropriate use of health care resources, and disruption in doctor-patient relationships. Although patient education through advertising is appropriate, misleading patients in the name of gaining market share, boosting profits, or even boosting trial accrual is not. It is critical that rigorous ethical guidelines are adopted and that oversight is introduced to ensure that cancer center marketing supports good patient care and public health interests. Patients with cancer have been identified as an especially vulnerable population because of fears and anxiety related to their diagnosis and the very real need to identify optimal sources of care. Cancer organizations have a fiduciary duty and a moral and legal obligation to provide truthful information to avoid deceptive, inaccurate claims associated with treatment success. In this article, actionable recommendations are provided for both the oncologist and the cancer center's marketing team to promote ethical marketing of services to patients with cancer. This tailored guidance for the oncology community includes explicit communication on (1) ensuring fair and balanced promotion of cancer services, (2) avoiding exaggeration of claims in the context of reputational marketing, (3) providing data and statistics to support direct and implied assertions of treatment success, and (4) defining eligible patient groups in the context of marketing for research. These recommendations for cancer centers are designed to promote ethical quality marketing information to patients with cancer.

Do Patients With Advanced Cancer Have the Ability to Make Informed Decisions for Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials?

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer (ACPs) participating in phase I clinical trials inadequately understand many elements of informed consent (IC); however, the prevalence and impact of cognitive impairment has not been described. Patients and Methods ACPs enrolled onto phase I trials underwent neuropsychological assessment to evaluate cognitive functioning (CF) covering the following domains: memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test), executive functioning (Trail Making Test B), language (Boston Naming Test-Short Version and Controlled Oral Word Association Test), attention (Trail Making Test A and Wechsler Adult Intelligenence Scale-IV Digit Span), comprehension (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function). Structured interviews evaluated IC and decisional capacity. Psychological measures included distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II). Results One hundred eighteen ACPs on phase I trials were evaluated, with CF ranging from mild impairment to superior performance. Only 45% of ACPs recalled physician disclosure of the phase I trial purpose. The 50% of ACPs who correctly identified the phase I research purpose had greater CF compared with ACPs who did not, as revealed by the mean T scores for memory (37.2 ± 5.6 v 32.5 ± 5.1, respectively; P = .001), attention (29 ± 2.7 v 26.9 ± 2.4, respectively; P < .001), visual attention (35.2 ± 6.6 v 31.5 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .001), and executive function (38.9 ± 7.5 v 34 ± 7.1, respectively; P < .001). Older ACPs (≥ 60 years) were less likely to recall physician disclosure of phase I purpose than younger ACPs (30% v 70%, respectively; P = .02) and had measurable deficits in total memory (34.2 ± 5.0 v 37.3 ± 5.6, respectively; P = .002), attention (24.5 ± 2.6 v 28 ± 2.8, respectively; P < .001), and executive function (32.8 ± 7.3 v 36.4 ± 7.6, respectively; P = .01). Older ACPs, compared with younger ACPs, also had greater depression scores (10.6 ± 9.2 v 8.1 ± 5.2, respectively; P = .03) and lower quality-of-life scores (152 ± 29.6 v 167 ± 20, respectively; P = .03). After adjustment by age, no psychological or neuropsychological variable was further significantly associated with likelihood of purpose identification. Conclusion CF seems to play a role in ACP recall and comprehension of IC for early-phase clinical trials, especially among older ACPs.

The utility of cost discussions between patients with cancer and oncologists.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with cancer can experience substantial financial burden. Little is known about patients' preferences for incorporating cost discussions into treatment decision making or about the ramifications of those discussions. The objective of this study was to determine patient preferences for and benefits of discussing costs with doctors. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, survey study. METHODS: We enrolled insured adults with solid tumors on anticancer therapy who were treated at a referral cancer center or an affiliated rural cancer clinic. Patients were surveyed at enrollment and again 3 months later about cost discussions with doctors, decision making, and financial burden. Medical records were abstracted for disease and treatment data. Logistic regression investigated characteristics associated with greater desire to discuss costs. RESULTS: Of 300 patients (86% response rate), 52% expressed some desire to discuss treatment-related out-of-pocket costs with doctors and 51% wanted their doctor to take costs into account to some degree when making treatment decisions. However, only 19% had talked to their doctor about costs. Of those, 57% reported lower out-of-pocket costs as a result of cost discussions. In multivariable logistic regression, higher subjective financial distress was associated with greater likelihood to desire cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.36). Nonwhite race was associated with lower likelihood to desire cost discussions (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer varied in their desire to discuss costs with doctors, but most who discussed costs believed the conversations helped reduce their expenses. Patient-physician cost communication might reduce out-of-pocket costs even in oncology where treatment options are limited.