Paskett, Electra D.

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor’s complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association between self‐identified race and overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and response to therapy among patients enrolled in the randomized Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)/SWOG 80405 trial.MethodsPatients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who were enrolled in the CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial were identified by race. On the basis of covariates (treatment arm, KRAS status, sex, age, and body mass index), each Black patient was exact matched with a White patient. The association between race and OS and PFS was examined using a marginal Cox proportional hazard model for matched pairs. The interaction between KRAS status and race was tested in the model. The association between race and response to therapy and adverse events were examined using a marginal logistic regression model.ResultsIn total, 392 patients were matched and included in the final data set. No difference in OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73‐1.16), PFS (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78‐1.20), or response to therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65‐1.52) was observed between Black and White patients. Patients with KRAS mutant status (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02‐1.67), a performance statusscore of 1 (reference, a performance status of 0; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18‐1.88), or ≥3 metastatic sites (reference, 1 metastatic site; HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.22‐2.28) experienced worse OS. Black patients experienced lower rates and risk of grade ≥3 fatigue (6.6% vs 13.3%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24‐0.91) but were equally likely to be treated with a dose reduction (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.72‐1.65).ConclusionsNo difference in OS, PFS, or response to therapy was observed between Black patients and White patients in an equal treatment setting of the CALGB/SWOG 80405 randomized controlled trial.Lay Summary Despite improvements in screening and treatment, studies have demonstrated worse outcomes in Black patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in cancer‐specific outcomes among Black and White patients receiving equivalent treatment on the CALGB/SWOG 80405 randomized clinical trial. In this study, there was no difference in overall survival, progression‐free survival, or response to therapy between Black and White patients treated on a clinical trial. These findings suggest that access to care and differences in treatment may be responsible for racial disparities in colorectal cancer.

Abstract PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of food insecurity among patients with cancer and to validate the Hunger Vital Sign (HVS) instrument compared to the standard-of-care USDA 18-item Household Food Security Scale (HFSS). The secondary objective was to assess disparities in food access based on race, zip code and insurance status.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer who were hospitalized at The Ohio State University James Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSU-CCC) were identified to participate by the Department of Social Work. Each patient completed the HVS and the 18-item HFSS. The prevalence of food insecurity was estimated and 95% Wilson score confidence intervals were calculated. The agreement between the prevalence of food insecurity as measured by the two different instruments were compared through the use of McNemar’s test. Disparities in food access based on race, zip code and insurance status were further assessed with Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve patients participated. We found that the HVS identified food insecurity in 14.3% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 9.1, 21.7) of participants, whereas the 18-item HFSS identified 8.6% (95% CI: 4.8, 15.1) of participants. However, there was no significant difference between food insecurity as measured by the HVS and the 18-item HFSS (p = 0.289). There were also no significant differences in food insecurity based on race, insurance status or geographical location of patients.CONCLUSION: The HVS is an alternative to the 18-item HFSS as a valid tool to assess food security amongst hospitalized patients with cancer.

Background Lymphedema is an adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that causes swelling and pain in the arm and hand. We tested 2 lymphedema prevention interventions and their impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in a group‐randomized trial at 38 cooperative group sites within the United States. Methods Patients were recruited before breast surgery. Sites were randomly assigned to education‐only (EO) lymphedema prevention or education plus exercise and physical therapy (LEAP). Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in arm volume at any time from baseline to 18 months postsurgery. HRQOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast plus 4 lymphedema items (FACT‐B+4). Longitudinal mixed model regression analysis, adjusting for key demographic and clinical variables, examined participants' HRQOL by intervention group and lymphedema status. Results A total of 547 patients (56% LEAP) were enrolled and completed HRQOL assessments. The results revealed no differences between the interventions in preventing lymphedema ( P = .37) or HRQOL (FACT‐B+4 total score; P = .8777). At 18 months, the presence of lymphedema was associated with HRQOL at borderline significance ( P = .0825). However, African American patients reported greater lymphedema symptoms ( P = .0002) and better emotional functioning ( P = .0335) than patients of other races or ethnicities. Lower HRQOL during the intervention was associated with younger age ( P ≤ .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >0 ( P = .0002), ≥1 positive lymph nodes ( P = .0009), having no education beyond high school ( P < .0001), having undergone chemotherapy ( P = .0242), and having had only axillary node dissection or sentinel node biopsy versus both ( P = .0007). Conclusion The tested interventions did not differ in preventing lymphedema or in HRQOL outcomes. African American women reported greater HRQOL impacts due to lymphedema symptoms than women of other races or ethnicities.

Background Lymphedema affects many women who are treated for breast cancer. We examined the effectiveness of an education‐only (EO) versus education plus sleeve compression/exercise intervention (lymphedema education and prevention [LEAP]) on lymphedema incidence and range of motion (ROM) in a group‐randomized trial across 38 cooperative group sites. Methods The treating institution was randomly assigned to either EO or LEAP by a study statistician. All patients at a treating institution participated in the same intervention (EO or LEAP) to minimize contamination bias. Participants completed surveys, arm volume measurements, and self‐reported ROM assessments before surgery and at 12 and 18 months after surgery. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in limb volume at any time post‐surgery up to 18 months after surgery or diagnosis by a health provider. Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel tests were used to compare lymphedema‐free rates between groups, stratified by lymph node surgery type. Self‐reported ROM differences were compared between groups. Results A total of 554 participants (56% LEAP) were included in the analyses. At 18 months, lymphedema‐free rates were 58% (EO) versus 55% (LEAP) ( P = .37). ROM for both arms was greater in LEAP versus EO at 12 months; by 18 months, most women reported full ROM, regardless of group. In LEAP, only one‐third wore a sleeve ≥75% of the time; 50% performed lymphedema exercises at least weekly. Conclusion Lymphedema incidence did not differ by intervention group at 18 months. Poor adherence in the LEAP group may have contributed. However, physical therapy may speed recovery of ROM. Further research is needed to effectively reduce the incidence and severity of lymphedema in patients who have breast cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment, with the goal of helping healthcare professionals who work with survivors, including those in primary care. The guidelines also provide recommendations to help clinicians promote physical activity, weight management, and proper immunizations in survivors and facilitate care coordination to ensure that all of the survivors’ needs are addressed. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize additions and changes made to the guidelines in 2020 regarding cardiovascular disease risk assessment and screening for subsequent primary malignancies.

e24176 Background: Decision aids for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge, but the relative effect of pre-consultation and within-consultation DAs is not known. Methods: We conducted a parallel design, 2-by-2 factorial, 4-arm, cluster-RCT in urology practices affiliated with the NCI’s Alliance research base. We compared patient knowledge immediately after consultation (%12-item% correct) intervention arms compared to usual care. We used mixed effects regression modeling to assess effect of interventions on knowledge adjusting for site-clustering, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White; Other), age (years), clinical stage (T1-3), PSA, and Gleason score. Results: 15 of 21 randomized centers accrued 158 pts from Nov 2017 to June 2019. The arm delivering both DAs (n = 3 sites) recruited 25 pts. The pre-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 39 pts. The within-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 44 pts. The no DA arm (n = 4 sites) accrued 50 pts. Overall, mean age was 64; 54% were AA; 73% had T1 stage; median Gleason = 7; and median PSA = 7. The combined DAs group, followed by pre-consultation reported higher median knowledge (75% and 67%, respectively). The within-consultation and no DA arms both reported median knowledge scores (58%). Within arm, inter-site standard deviations in mean knowledge scores ranged from 0.164 in in the pre-consultation arm to 0.232 in the usual care arm. Neither pre-consultation nor within-consultation DAs had statistically significant effects (p = .15 and p = .99, respectively). Pre-specified adjusted difference [97.5% CIs], comparing the pre-consultation DA and the within-consultation DA with the control was 9.4% [-7.3%, 26.2%] and -0.4% [-16.9%, 16.1%], respectively. Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient was high (.24). No interaction effects were identified (p = .98). A post-hoc analysis comparing any DA vs usual care found a mean adjusted difference [95% CI] of 5.6% [-8.5%, 19.8%] (p = 0.40), 63.9% for any DA and 58.3% for usual care. Conclusions: Possible knowledge gains associated with some DAs for early prostate cancer were obscured by larger-than-expected intra-cluster correlation effects associated with the primary outcome. How interventions were used was not measured. Support:UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; R01 MD008934-06. Clinical trial information: NCT03103321 .