Wahner-Hendrickson, Andrea E.

Abstract BRCA-associated homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is present in ~ 50% of high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) and predicts sensitivity to platinum-based therapy. However, there is little understanding of why some patients with BRCA-deficient tumors experience unexpectedly poor outcomes. We profiled 154 tumors, enriched for patients with BRCA-deficient tumors that experienced short overall survival (≤ 3 years, n = 42), using whole-genome, transcriptome, and methylation analyses. All but one BRCA-deficient tumor exceeded an accepted HRD genomic scarring threshold. However, patients with BRCA1-deficient HGSC with a more elevated HRD score survived significantly longer. Patients with BRCA2-deficient HGSC and loss of NF1 survived twice as long as those without NF1 loss, whereas PIK3CA or RAD21 amplification defined BRCA2-deficient HGSC with exceptionally short survival. BRCA1-deficient tumors in short survivors had evidence of immunosuppressive c-kit signaling and EMT. In a large HGSC cohort (n = 1,389) including 282 individuals with pathogenic germline BRCA variants (gBRCApv), the location of the mutation within functional domains stratified clinical outcomes. Notably, residual disease after primary surgery had limited prognostic effect in gBRCApv-carriers compared to non-carriers. Our findings indicate that tumor HR proficiency in the context of therapy response and survival is not a binary property, and highlight genomic and immune modifiers of outcomes in BRCA-deficient HGSC.

Background: Cancer distress management is an evidence-based component of comprehensive cancer care. Group-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for cancer distress (CBT-C) is the first distress treatment associated with replicated survival advantages in randomized clinical trials. Despite research supporting patient satisfaction, improved outcomes, and reduced costs, CBT-C has not been tested sufficiently within billable clinical settings, profoundly reducing patient access to best-evidence care. This study aimed to adapt and implement manualized CBT-C as a billable clinical service. Patients and Methods: A stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods, hybrid implementation study design was used, and the study was conducted in 3 phases: (1) stakeholder engagement and adaptation of CBT-C delivery, (2) patient and therapist user testing and adaptation of CBT-C content, and (3) implementation of practice-adapted CBT-C as a billable clinical service focused on evaluation of reach, acceptability, and feasibility across stakeholder perspectives. Results: A total of 40 individuals and 7 interdisciplinary group stakeholders collectively identified 7 primary barriers (eg, number of sessions, workflow concerns, patient geographic distance from center) and 9 facilitators (eg, favorable financial model, emergence of oncology champions). CBT-C adaptations made before implementation included expanding eligibility criteria beyond breast cancer, reducing number of sessions to 5 (10 total hours), eliminating and adding content, and revising language and images. During implementation, 252 patients were eligible; 100 (40%) enrolled in CBT-C (99% covered by insurance). The primary reason for declining enrollment was geographic distance. Of enrollees, 60 (60%) consented to research participation (75% women; 92% white). All research participants completed at least 60% of content (6 of 10 hours), with 98% reporting they would recommend CBT-C to family and friends. Conclusions: CBT-C implementation as a billable clinical service was acceptable and feasible across cancer care stakeholder measures. Future research is needed to replicate acceptability and feasibility results in more diverse patient groups, test effectiveness in clinical settings, and reduce barriers to access via remote delivery platforms.