Hanlon, Bret M.

Abstract Objective To test the effectiveness of a surgical web‐based decision aid (DA) in improving knowledge. Summary of Background Data DAs support decision making by providing information about the options. Methods A stepped wedge trial was conducted in 10 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program clinics (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a web‐based DA. Patients with stage 0 through 3 breast cancer being considered for surgery were enrolled. Knowledge (primary outcome) was measured using the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument and patients were asked, “How informed do you feel?” Intervention effects were tested with linear mixed‐effects models, accounting for surgeon and clinic‐level clustering, time, and enrollment after COVID. Additional models controlled for demographics. Results A total of 44% of DA arm patients reviewed the DA and 58% in UC arm reported reviewing “any information.” Being in the DA arm versus UC was not associated with knowledge. However, “review of information” was associated with higher knowledge. In addition, non‐White race and lower education were associated with lower knowledge. The DA arm was associated with higher perceptions of feeling informed (parameter estimate 1.36; 95% CI, 0.18–2.55; p = .02); this persisted even when controlling for review of information or demographics. Conclusion Improved knowledge was not demonstrate with a web‐based DA versus UC. Interestingly, the DA was associated with a higher likelihood of feeling informed. Future research will explore the discrepancy between patients feeling informed but having low knowledge, especially for disadvantaged patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0376600

Abstract The intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) measures the correlation of observations within clusters and is a key parameter for power and sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials (CRTs). To facilitate the design of future CRTs within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), all studies from the NCORP website were reviewed to identify completed CRTs. ICCs for primary and secondary outcomes (when available) were ascertained from these trials and summarized in this article as a resource for future trial development. Although ICCs are relatively small for many outcome cluster combinations, that is not always the case, so consideration should always be given to the specific outcome of interest, trial design, and type of cluster when estimating an ICC to facilitate trial development.

314 Background: In a recent trial, we observed no statistically significant increase in engagement after a web-based decision aid (DA) was delivered to breast cancer patients prior to a surgical consult. However, a minority of the intervention group (44%) reviewed the DA. The objective is to assess the effect of the DA on engagement for the cohort of patients who reviewed it. Methods: A stepped wedge trial was conducted with 10 NCI Community Oncology Research Program clinics that care for a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (6/2019-12/2021). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a DA. Patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer eligible for surgery provided consent prior to a surgical consult. Engagement was measured from audio-recorded surgical consults (Active Patient Behaviors, Street protocol). For this analysis, we identified a cohort of treatment compliant (TC) patients who reviewed the DA. Intervention effects comparing TC and UC groups were tested with linear mixed-effects models, accounting for time, enrollment post-COVID, and patient age, race, education, and socioeconomic disadvantage (assessed with Area Deprivation Index and dichotomized). Exploratory models were generated using Active Patient Behavior subcomponents (asking questions, assertive responses, expressions of concern) as the outcome. Results: The cohort includes 407 patients (UC 264; TC 143). TC patients were more likely to be white (TC 73%, UC 64%, p=0.03), have a college degree (TC 65%, UC 55%, p=0.05), and not be disadvantaged (TC 89%, UC 72%, p=0.001). TC was associated with increased engagement (8.2 [0.08, 16.2], p=0.048, Table). A college degree was associated with higher, while black race and socioeconomic disadvantage lower, engagement. On exploratory analyses, TC had a stronger association with higher levels of assertive responses (2.9 [-0.3, 6.1], p=0.07) compared with asking questions (5.2 [-1.4, 11.9], p=0.12) or expressions of concern (0.08 [-0.60, 0.76], p=0.82). Conclusions: We observed increased engagement in breast cancer patients who reviewed a DA prior to a surgical consult. However, we also observed differences based on race, education, and socioeconomic disadvantage. Further research will identify adjunct interventions to combine with the DA to improve cancer care delivery for diverse populations. Support: UG1 CA189823; AHRQ R01HS025194; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT03766009 .[Table: see text]

6520 Background: Increased patient engagement in decision making may mitigate disparities in breast cancer surgical care. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients disproportionately experience barriers to engagement. Decision aids (DA) increase engagement by providing information, establishing role expectations during the consult, and increasing confidence in surgeon interactions. The objective was to test the effectiveness of a surgical web-based DA in increasing engagement among breast cancer patients in clinics that care for a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Methods: A stepped wedge trial was conducted with 10 NCI Community Oncology Research Program clinics (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Research Base, 6/19-12/21). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a web-based DA. Patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer eligible for surgery provided consent prior to a surgical consult. Socioeconomic disadvantage was assessed with the Area Deprivation Index measured at the zip+4 level and dichotomized. Patient engagement was measured by Patient’s Self-Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-5, follow-up survey) and count of Active Patient Behaviors (Street protocol, audio recorded consult). Intervention effects were tested with linear mixed-effects models, accounting for surgeon and clinic-level clustering, time, and enrollment post-COVID. Heterogeneity of treatment effect by socioeconomic disadvantage was assessed with an interaction term. Results: 573 patients enrolled. 44% (136/309) reviewed the DA. No significant difference in engagement was observed comparing DA and UC for PEPPI-5 (-0.80 [95% CI -2.13, 0.54], p = 0.24) or Active Patient Behaviors (2.52 [CI -4.11, 9.15], p = 0.46). Enrollment post-COVID was associated with increased Active Patient Behaviors (9.59 [CI 1.76, 17.43], p = 0.02) but no change in PEPPI-5 (-1.31 [CI -2.88, 0.26], p = 0.10). No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed. Conclusions: In this trial conducted in clinics that serve diverse populations, no significant relationship was observed between a web-based DA and patient engagement. Conducting this stepped wedge trial during the pandemic was challenging. Future analyses will explore the impact of COVID on outcomes and effect of the decision aid for patients who reviewed it. UG1 CA189823; AHRQ R01HS025194; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03766009 . [Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundRisk‐stratified follow‐up guidelines that account for the absolute risk and timing of recurrence may improve the quality and efficiency of breast cancer follow‐up. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship of anatomic stage and receptor status with timing of the first recurrence for patients with local‐regional breast cancer and generate risk‐stratified follow‐up recommendations.MethodsThe authors conducted a secondary analysis of 8007 patients with stage I–III breast cancer who enrolled in nine Alliance legacy clinical trials from 1997 to 2013 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02171078). Patients who received standard‐of‐care therapy were included. Patients who were missing stage or receptor status were excluded. The primary outcome was days from the earliest treatment start date to the date of first recurrence. The primary explanatory variable was anatomic stage. The analysis was stratified by receptor type. Cox proportional‐hazards regression models produced cumulative probabilities of recurrence. A dynamic programming algorithm approach was used to optimize the timing of follow‐up intervals based on the timing of recurrence events.ResultsThe time to first recurrence varied significantly between receptor types (p < .0001). Within each receptor type, stage influenced the time to recurrence (p < .0001). The risk of recurrence was highest and occurred earliest for estrogen receptor (ER)‐negative/progesterone receptor (PR)‐negative/Her2neu‐negative tumors (stage III; 5‐year probability of recurrence, 45.5%). The risk of recurrence was lower for ER‐positive/PR‐positive/Her2neu‐positive tumors (stage III; 5‐year probability of recurrence, 15.3%), with recurrences distributed over time. Model‐generated follow‐up recommendations by stage and receptor type were created.ConclusionsThis study supports considering both anatomic stage and receptor status in follow‐up recommendations. The implementation of risk‐stratified guidelines based on these data has the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of follow‐up.

Objective: We sought to evaluate local/regional recurrence rates after breast-conserving surgery in a cohort of patients enrolled in legacy trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and to evaluate variation in recurrence rates by receptor subtype. Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equivalent survival between breast conservation and mastectomy, albeit with higher local/regional recurrence rates after breast conservation. However, absolute rates of local/regional recurrence have been declining with multi-modality treatment. Methods: Data from 5 Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology legacy trials that enrolled women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2010 were included. Women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and standard systemic therapies (n=4,404) were included. Five-year rates of local/regional recurrence were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were censored at the time of distant recurrence (if recorded as the first recurrence), death, or last follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with time to local/regional recurrence, including patient age, tumor size, lymph node status, and receptor subtype. Results: Overall 5-year recurrence was 4.6% (95% CI=4.0-5.4%). Five-year recurrence rates were lowest in those with ER+ or PR+ tumors (Her2+ 3.4% [95% CI 2.0-5.7%], Her2- 4.0% [95% CI 3.2-4.9%]) and highest in the triple-negative subtype (7.1% [95% CI 5.4-9.3%]). On multivariable analysis, increasing nodal involvement and triple-negative subtype were positively associated with recurrence (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Rates of local/regional recurrence after breast conservation in women with breast cancer enrolled in legacy trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology are significantly lower than historic estimates. This data can better inform patient discussions and surgical decision-making.

Introduction Socioeconomic disparities for breast cancer surgical care exist. Although the aetiology of the observed socioeconomic disparities is likely multifactorial, patient engagement during the surgical consult is critical. Shared decision-making may reduce health disparities by addressing barriers to patient engagement in decision-making that disproportionately impact socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. In this trial, we test the impact of a decision aid on increasing socioeconomically disadvantaged patients’ engagement in breast cancer surgery decision-making. Methods and analysis This multisite randomised trial is conducted through 10 surgical clinics within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). We plan a stepped-wedge design with clinics randomised to the time of transition from usual care to the decision aid arm. Study participants are female patients, aged ≥18 years, with newly diagnosed stage 0–III breast cancer who are planning breast surgery. Data collection includes a baseline surgeon survey, baseline patient survey, audio-recording of the surgeon–patient consultation, a follow-up patient survey and medical record data review. Interviews and focus groups are conducted with a subset of patients, surgeons and clinic stakeholders. The effectiveness of the decision aid at increasing patient engagement (primary outcome) is evaluated using generalised linear mixed-effects models. The extent to which the effect of the decision aid intervention on patient engagement is mediated through the mitigation of barriers is tested in joint linear structural equation models. Qualitative interviews explore how barriers impact engagement, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Ethics and dissemination This protocol has been approved by the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board, and Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained. We plan to disseminate the findings through journal publications and national meetings, including the NCORP network. Our findings will advance the science of medical decision-making with the potential to reduce socioeconomic health disparities. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03766009).

Introduction: Using pooled data from randomized trials of symptomatic patients assigned to carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA), we have previously shown age to be an effect modifier, with increasing risk at older ages for CAS but not for CEA. To extend assessment of age as an effect modifier to the asymptomatic population, we combined the asymptomatic patients from CREST with the patients from ACT I. Methods: We analyzed data from 2544 subjects with >= 70% carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard management of cardiovascular risk factors. CREST enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and ACT I enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility in ACT I). We examined the impact of age on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients using Kaplan-Meier methods. Age was considered in three strata (< 65, 65 to 74, and 75+). The pre-specified, primary composite endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. Results: For patients assigned to CAS, risk differed between the age strata (p <0.0001) where relative to those under age 65, there was no difference in risk for those aged 65 to 74 (HR = 1.3 ; 95% CI: 0.7, 2.3, p=0.38), but those aged 75+ were at substantially higher risk (HR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.5, 5.5, p=0.001). In contrast, risk did not differ by age strata (p = 0.80) for those assigned to CEA. Conclusions: Age-related risk factors, e.g. carotid anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology, should be considered before selecting patients aged 75+ for CAS.

Introduction: Previous analyses of randomized trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have revealed varying sex-associated risk. To better understand sex as an effect modifier in the asymptomatic population, we combined the asymptomatic patients from CREST with the asymptomatic patients from ACT I. Methods: We analyzed data from 2544 subjects with ≥ 70% carotid stenosis randomized to CAS or CEA in addition to standard management of cardiovascular risk factors. CREST enrolled 1091 (548 CAS, 543 CEA) and ACT I enrolled 1453 (1089 CAS, 364 CEA) asymptomatic patients less than 80 years old (upper age eligibility in ACT I). We examined the impact of sex on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients using Kaplan-Meier methods. The pre-specified, primary composite endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period (within 30 days of randomization) or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization. Results: For patients assigned to CAS, there was no difference in risk between the sexes (female-to-male HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.65 -- 1.66, P = 0.87). For patients assigned to CEA, the difference in risk detected was not significant (female-to-male HR = 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 - 2.67, P = 0.26). Conclusions: Sex-differences in risk were not significant for those assigned CAS nor those assigned CEA in this largest pooled analysis of asymptomatic patients comparing CAS to CEA.

Abstract Background: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly altered health care worldwide. To save protective equipment and minimize exposures, many hospitals stopped some or all cancer surgery, leading oncologic providers to quickly adjust patient management. The goal of this study is to describe the breast cancer patient level changes which occurred during the initial months of COVID-19 in the United States. Methods: The American Society of Breast Surgeons developed a COVID-19 specific registry, within the established HIPPA compliant Mastery of Breast Surgery Program. Surgeons entered patient demographic data as well as their surgical and medical care (Neoadjuvant endocrine (NET) vs Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT)). Data fields tracked whether decisions were usual for that practice, or modified due to COVID-19. Results: Between 3/1 and 6/17/2020, data from 1781 patients was entered by 154 surgeons. Mean age was 63, 78% Caucasian, 10% African American, 6% Hispanic; with geographic distribution ranging from 10.8% Northwest to 29.5% Northeast. Initial consultation took place in-person for 94.8% and only 5.2% (89) occurred via video/telephone. To date, just over 1% (14) of patients tested positive for COVID-19. Mean invasive tumor size was 21.2mm and 15.7% were node positive. Of 1445 invasive breast cancers 75% (1081) were ER +/HER2-, 13.5% (195) HER2+, 11.1% (160) triple negative (TNBC) (9/missing data). DCIS comprised 18.2% (325) of the cohort. Of 267 cases of ER+ DCIS, 49% (131) had primary surgery and 49% (130) received NET. The majority of NET use was due to COVID-19, 95% (124). Almost all (50/52) ER- DCIS underwent primary surgery (6/missing ER). Table 1 describes the management for the 1436 patients with invasive cancer with known biomarkers. NET due to COVID-19 was utilized in 45% (482), with only 5% (54) as part of usual practice. Increasing age was not a statistically significant factor in the use of NET (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.01). In comparison to patients from the Northwest, patients from the Southwest and Northeast had the greatest use of NET(COVID-19) vs NET(usual) (ORs 14.4 and 4.6) Genomic assay testing was performed on the core biopsy in 216 patients, with 65% (141) due to COVID-19. Among the patients who had genomic testing due to COVID-19, 116 (82%) had NET, 18 (13%) had NCT, with the remaining having primary surgery. Of 472 patients treated with primary surgery for which the impact of COVID-19 was provided, surgery was delayed in 20% (96). Patients from the Northeast had a 2.1 x greater odds of having surgery delayed in comparison to those from the Midwest. Patients also experienced changes to their surgical plan with the most common changes being 6% (27) converting from mastectomy to breast conservation and 7% (34) from mastectomy with reconstruction to mastectomy without reconstruction. Conclusion: COVID-19 led to significant modifications in breast cancer treatment, including high rates of NET, genomic assay testing on core biopsies as well as delays in surgery; each of which were consistent with the prioritization and treatment recommendations from the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. The majority of patients with TNBC and HER2+ disease received guideline concordant NCT. The ASBrS Mastery COVID-19 registry provides a snapshot into the rapid care changes caused by the pandemic, has ongoing data entry and analysis and will enable understanding of the impact on long term breast cancer outcomes. Table 1: Biomarker specific treatmentsER+/HER2- (1081)TNBC (160)HER2+/any ER (195)Mean Age656159African American (%)97(9%)21(13%)27(14%)Primary Surgery (usual)386 (36%)50 (31%)37 (19%)Primary Surgery (COVID-19)28 (2.6%)6 (3.7%)6 (3.1%)NET (usual)54 (5%)NA1(0.5%)NET (COVID-19)482 (45%)NA6 (3.6%)NCT (usual)90 (8.3%)98 (61%)137 (70%)NCT (COVID-19)39 (3.6%)6 (3.7%)8 (4.1%) Citation Format: Lee Gravatt Wilke, Toan T Nguyen, Qiuyu Yang, Bret M Hanlon, Kathryn A Wagner, Pamela Strickland, Eric A Brown, Jill Dietz, Judy C Boughey. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer: Initial analysis of the american society of breast surgeons mastery COVID-19 registry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr SS2-01.