Ghosh, Karthik

The NCCN Guidelines for Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical stage, and treatment options for patients. The panel meets annually to discuss updates to the guidelines based on comments from expert review from panel members, institutional review, as well as submissions from within NCCN and external organizations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the introduction of a new page for locally advanced disease in the setting of clinical node negative status, entitled “Clinical N0 Disease, Locally Advanced MCC.” This new algorithm page addresses locally advanced disease, and the panel clarifies the meaning behind the term “nonsurgical” by further defining locally advanced disease. In addition, the guideline includes the management of in-transit disease and updates to the systemic therapy options.

Importance Benign breast disease (BBD) comprises approximately 75% of breast biopsy diagnoses. Surgical biopsy specimens diagnosed as nonproliferative (NP), proliferative disease without atypia (PDWA), or atypical hyperplasia (AH) are associated with increasing breast cancer (BC) risk; however, knowledge is limited on risk associated with percutaneously diagnosed BBD. Objectives To estimate BC risk associated with BBD in the percutaneous biopsy era irrespective of surgical biopsy. Design, Setting, and Participants In this retrospective cohort study, BBD biopsy specimens collected from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2013, from patients with BBD at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, were reviewed by 2 pathologists masked to outcomes. Women were followed up from 6 months after biopsy until censoring, BC diagnosis, or December 31, 2021. Exposure Benign breast disease classification and multiplicity by pathology panel review. Main Outcomes The main outcome was diagnosis of BC overall and stratified as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive BC. Risk for presence vs absence of BBD lesions was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Risk in patients with BBD compared with female breast cancer incidence rates from the Iowa Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program were estimated. Results Among 4819 female participants, median age was 51 years (IQR, 43-62 years). Median follow-up was 10.9 years (IQR, 7.7-14.2 years) for control individuals without BC vs 6.6 years (IQR, 3.7-10.1 years) for patients with BC. Risk was higher in the cohort with BBD than in SEER data: BC overall (standard incidence ratio [SIR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.76-2.17), invasive BC (SIR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78), and DCIS (SIR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.54-3.77). The SIRs increased with increasing BBD severity (1.42 [95% CI, 1.19-1.71] for NP, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.88-2.54] for PDWA, and 3.91 [95% CI, 2.97-5.14] for AH), comparable to surgical cohorts with BBD. Risk also increased with increasing lesion multiplicity (SIR: 2.40 [95% CI, 2.06-2.79] for ≥3 foci of NP, 3.72 [95% CI, 2.31-5.99] for ≥3 foci of PDWA, and 5.29 [95% CI, 3.37-8.29] for ≥3 foci of AH). Ten-year BC cumulative incidence was 4.3% for NP, 6.6% for PDWA, and 14.6% for AH vs an expected population cumulative incidence of 2.9%. Conclusions and Relevance In this contemporary cohort study of women diagnosed with BBD in the percutaneous biopsy era, overall risk of BC was increased vs the general population (DCIS and invasive cancer combined), similar to that in historical BBD cohorts. Development and validation of pathologic classifications including both BBD severity and multiplicity may enable improved BC risk stratification.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer in the United States. Due to the high frequency, BCC occurrences are not typically recorded, and annual rates of incidence can only be estimated. Current estimated rates are 2 million Americans affected annually, and this continues to rise. Exposure to radiation, from either sunlight or previous medical therapy, is a key player in BCC development. BCC is not as aggressive as other skin cancers because it is less likely to metastasize. However, surgery and radiation are prevalent treatment options, therefore disfigurement and limitation of function are significant considerations. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) outline an updated risk stratification and treatment options available for BCC.

Objective: The purpose of this feasibility pilot study was to evaluate safety and adherence of a wearable brain sensing wellness device designed to reduce stress among healthcare professionals (HCP). Methods: A total of 40 HCP were invited to participate in an open-label pilot study. Participants were asked to use a brain sensing wearable device (MUSE-S™) on a daily basis to reduce their stress, for a total of 90 days. Total study participation duration was 180 days. Study enrollment began in August 2021 and ended December 2021. The exploratory outcomes included stress, depression, sleep, burn-out, resilience, quality of life, and cognition. Results: Among the 40 HCP in study, the majority were female (85%), white (87.5%) and with an average age of 41.3 ± 11.0 years (SD). Participants used the wearable device an average of 23.8 times over a 30-day period with a mean duration of 5.8 min with each use. Study results demonstrate the positive impact of guided mindfulness using the wearable device MUSE-S™ and its accompanying application (APP). A statistically significant improvement was found for a reduction in stress ( P < .001) and improvement in resilience ( P = .02), quality of life ( P = .003), and cognition ( P < .001). The majority (91.9%) of the participants indicated they felt more relaxed after using the device, and 73% indicated they would continue to use this device at end-of-study. No adverse effects were reported. Conclusion: Study results show that 3 to 10 min of guided meditation during work hours through the use of a brain sensing wearable device is safe and acceptable, with associated health benefits for HCP.

Abstract Mammographic breast density (MBD) has been shown to be a strong, independent risk factor for breast cancer (BC) irrespective of race/ethnicity. Given the risk association of MBD and its potential to mask tumors on a mammogram, state and federal laws have mandated that women receive information regarding their personal MBD in their mammography reports. However, concerns have been raised regarding the impact of MBD notification on patient anxiety, especially written information for women who experience health disparities such as racial/ethnic minorities, lower health literacy, limited English proficiency and lower socioeconomic status. We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial to examine the impact of three different written and interpersonal approaches to MBD notification on patient anxiety, BC worry, and self-perceived BC risk, among Latinas receiving routine mammography screening at a federally qualified medical center (FQHC). We hypothesized that interpersonal education would reduce anxiety and worry, relative to the written notifications alone. The study was performed at the Baseline Clinic of Mountain Park Health Center, a FQHC in Phoenix, AZ. Women between ages 40 and 74 years presenting for screening mammogram were eligible. After providing signed informed consent, participants were randomized equally to usual care (UC- mailed notification letter); enhanced care (notification letter and MBD educational brochure designed for this study): interpersonal care (notification letter, brochure, promotora education via telephone). A stratified block randomization procedure was used with age &gt; 50 years (yes vs no), ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic), and language preference (Spanish vs. English) as strata. Study participants completed surveys at the time of enrollment/pre-intervention (T0), at two weeks to six months after intervention was delivered (T1), and about one year after randomization (T2). Anxiety state was measured using the state anxiety subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scale (STAI-S) (range from 20-80). BC worry was probed using the question: “How frequently do you worry about getting breast cancer someday”. The self-perceived lifetime risk of BC was rated between 0% (no chance of BC) to 100% (definitely will get BC). The proportion of participants with an increase or persistence of higher level for each outcome between time points was compared between the three study groups. The study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. 1332 Latina women were enrolled and randomized between October 2016 and October 2019. All completed the baseline (T0) survey, 928 completed T1, 632 completed T2, and 516 completed both T1 and T2 surveys. At study entry, majority of the participants were young (64.1% between age 40-49 years), had no family history of breast cancer (81.0%), had less than high school education (68.8%), and were married or partnered (67.8%). At T0, the mean (SD) anxiety STAI score was 32.5 (11.1); 51.8% with moderate or severe anxiety (score &gt; 30). With regard to BC worry, 41.3% reported worrying “sometimes”, “often”, or “almost all the time”. Further, 25.4% reported a self-perceived lifetime risk of developing BC of &gt;10% while only 6.6% had a Gail model estimated lifetime risk score of &gt;10%. There was no significant difference in changes in anxiety, BC worry or self-perceived risk from T0 to either T1 or T2 surveys between the intervention groups. In summary, this study found high levels of baseline anxiety and BC worry (despite the majority being 40-49 years old and having no family history of BC) which persisted regardless of how notification and education were delivered. Future work is needed to improve the understanding of factors that could lower anxiety and BC worry and improve risk perception in this population. Citation Format: Karthik Ghosh, Sarah Jenkins, Jennifer Ridgeway, Jessica D. Austin, Bijan Borah, Bhavika K. Patel, Deborah Rhodes, Aaron Norman, Edna P. Ramos, Matt Jewett, Crystal Gonzalez, Valentina Hernandez, Davinder Singh, Vera Suman, Celine Vachon. Breast Density Notification: Impact on anxiety, breast cancer worry, and self-perceived risk among Latinas at a federally qualified medical center. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-05-38.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased burnout and staff turnover for health care providers (HCPs). The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the safety and acceptability of a Stress Resilience Program (SRP) for reducing perceived stress and improving resilience among HCPs during a pandemic. Method: Of the 12 HCPs expressing interest in the study, 10 were enrolled in this study. Participants attended three in-person visits (consent/screen, baseline, and end-of-study). The SRP consisted of education related to resilience enhancement and a breathing device ( BreatherFit®) for combined respiratory muscle training (cRMT). Participants completed 4 weeks of cRMT and applied situational breathing strategies as needed. Outcomes measured were changes in stress (PSS-10), resilience (BRS), depression (PRIME-MD), and sleep (PSQI and Ōura Ring®). Findings: The majority of participants were male (60%) and White (60%) with an average age of 39.7 years. Changes from baseline to end-of-treatment indicated a positive trend with significant stress reduction (−3.2 ± 3.9, p = .028) and nonsignificant depression reduction (−0.5 ± 0.7, p = .05). Resilience was high at baseline and continued to stay high during the study with a nonsignificant increase at end-of-study (+0.07 ± 0.7, p = .77). No changes in overall sleep scores were noted. All participants agreed the study was worthwhile, 80% indicated they would repeat the experience, while 90% indicated they would recommend the study to others. Conclusion/Application to Practice: Because of its size and portability, SRP is an easily applicable and promising option for reducing stress among HCPs during a high-stress period, such as a pandemic. Larger studies are needed.

Objective: The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the safety and use of a nature-based virtual reality (VR) experience among health care providers (HCP) during a pandemic. Methods: Twenty-four frontline HCP participated in this crossover pilot where the viewing order of the experiences were randomized. All participants attended in-person consent, baseline, and end-of-study visits. The intervention consisted of viewing 2 nature-based scenes (“walk in the woods” and “forest of focus”) through 3-D VR and with computer 4K graphic imagery. Randomization took place with regards to the viewing order (VR vs 4K computer video, scene 1 and 2). Outcomes measured were safety, acceptability and changes in intensity of anxiety feelings, resilience, emotional distress, cognitive function, and self-efficacy. Results: Among the 26 HCP expressing interest in the study, 24 enrolled in this study. The majority were male (58.3%), white (66.7%) and of an average age of 46.3 ± 10.5 years (standard deviation (SD)). End of the study survey showed that almost all participants (96%) would participate in the study again and recommend it to others. Twenty-three of the 24 participants also felt relaxed after seeing the imagery. With respect to anxiety (as measured by the STAI Y1), the VR “walk in the woods” had the greatest reduction from pre to post (6.4 points, SD = 5.98) followed by VR “forest of focus” (5.8 points, SD = 9.29), computer screen “forest of focus” (5.0 points, SD = 8.89), and computer screen “walk in the woods” (4.1 points, SD = 6.22). All 4 sessions had a significant decrease in score from pre to post (P-values ≤.005), but there was no significant difference in the change from pre- to post-session between the 4 groups (P-value = .5835). Conclusion: The use of the VR among HCP has promise for reducing stress among health care providers during a high stress period, such as a pandemic but much larger studies are needed.

The NCCN Guidelines for Squamous Cell Skin Cancer provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical stage, and treatment options for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The NCCN panel meets annually to discuss updates to the guidelines based on comments from panel members and the Institutional Review, as well as submissions from within NCCN and external organizations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the introduction of a new surgical recommendation terminology (peripheral and deep en face margin assessment), as well as recent updates on topical prophylaxis, immunotherapy for regional and metastatic disease, and radiation therapy.

BackgroundThe objective of this randomized trial was to evaluate the short‐term effect of bilingual written and interpersonal education regarding mammographic breast density (MBD).MethodsLatinas aged 40 to 74 years who were presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive a letter with their mammogram and MBD results (usual care [UC]), a letter plus a brochure (enhanced care [ENH]), or a letter plus a brochure and telephonic promotora education (interpersonal care [INT]). Surveys were administered at enrollment (T0) and 2 weeks to 6 months after intervention delivery (T1). Differences were assessed with χ2, Kruskal‐Wallis, and McNemar tests and pairwise comparisons as appropriate. INT metrics and audio recordings were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.ResultsBetween October 2016 and October 2019, 943 of 1108 Latina participants (85%) completed both surveys. At T1, INT participants were more likely (P < .001) to report seeing their MBD results in the letter (70.2%) than UC (53.1%) or ENH participants (55.1%). The percentage of INT women who reported speaking with a provider about MBD (29.0%) was significantly greater (P < .001) than the percentage of UC (14.7%) or ENH participants (15.6%). All groups saw significant (P < .001) but nondifferential improvements in their knowledge of MBD as a masking and risk factor. In the INT group, the promotora delivered education to 77.1% of the 446 participants randomized to INT and answered questions at 28.3% of the encounters for an average of $4.70 per participant.ConclusionsAmong Latinas in a low‐resource setting, MBD knowledge may increase with written or interpersonal education, but with modest investment, interpersonal education may better improve MBD awareness and prompt patient‐provider discussions.

Objective To estimate the health care workers (HCWs) self-reported stress, resilience, and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine inter-professional differences. Participants and Methods An email survey was sent to 474 HCW at a Midwestern HealthCare facility between April 9, 2020 and April 30, 2020. A total of 311 (65.6%) responses were received by May 31, 2020. The survey utilized 3 validated instruments: Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Brief Resilience Coping Scale (BRCS). Results Of the 311 responses, 302 were evaluated: 97 from nonmedical staff with patient contact (NMPC); 86 from nonmedical staff with no patient contact (NMNPC); 62 from medical doctors (MD), physician assistants (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP); and 57 from nurses. Significant differences were noted across job categories for stress and resilience, with nurses reporting highest PSS scores (effect estimates: −2.72, P = .009 for NMNPC; −2.50, P = .015 for NMPC; −3.21, P = .006 for MD/NP/PA respectively), and MD/NP/PA group with highest BRS scores: nurses (−0.31, P = .02); NMPC (−0.3333, P = .01); and NMNPC (−0.2828, P = .02). Younger personnel had higher stress (−1.59 per decade of age, P < .01) and more resilience (0.11 per decade of age, P = .002). Conclusion These self-reported data indicate that MD/NP/PA had the highest resilience scores and the nurses had highest stress levels. Efforts are warranted to include all HCWs in systematic stress mitigating interventions with particular attention to understand specific factors contributing to stress for the nursing team.