Smith, Mary Lou

ImportanceThere is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient’s perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).ObjectiveTo examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.ExposuresGP5 response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “somewhat,” “a little bit,” and “not at all.” Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, “very much,” and “quite a bit”) and low adverse event bother (ie, “somewhat,” “a little bit,” or “not at all”). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.Main Outcome and MeasureETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.ResultsOf the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

AbstractIn addition to the primary aim of seizure freedom, a key secondary aim of pediatric epilepsy surgery is to stabilize and, potentially, optimize cognitive development. Although the efficacy of surgical treatment for seizure control has been established, the long‐term intellectual and developmental trajectories are yet to be delineated. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies reporting pre‐ and postsurgical intelligence or developmental quotients (IQ/DQ) of children with focal lesional epilepsy aged ≤18 years at epilepsy surgery and assessed at >2 years after surgery. We determined the IQ/DQ change and conducted a random‐effects meta‐analysis and meta‐regression to assess its determinants. We included 15 studies reporting on 341 patients. The weighted mean age at surgery was 7.1 years (range = .3–13.8). The weighted mean postsurgical follow‐up duration was 5.6 years (range = 2.7–12.8). The overall estimate of the mean presurgical IQ/DQ was 60 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 47–73), the postsurgical IQ/DQ was 61 (95% CI = 48–73), and the change was +.94 IQ/DQ (95% CI = −1.70 to 3.58, p = .486). Children with presurgical IQ/DQ ≥ 70 showed a tendency for higher gains than those with presurgical IQ/DQ < 70 (p = .059). Higher gains were determined by cessation of antiseizure medication (ASM; p = .041), not just seizure freedom. Our findings indicate, on average, stabilization of intellectual and developmental functioning at long‐term follow‐up after epilepsy surgery. Once seizure freedom has been achieved, ASM cessation enables the optimization of intellectual and developmental trajectories in affected children.

AbstractLimited guidance exists regarding the assessment and management of psychogenic non‐epileptic seizures (PNES) in children. Our aim was to develop consensus‐based recommendations to fill this gap. The members of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Pediatric Psychiatric Issues conducted a scoping review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐SR) standards. This was supplemented with a Delphi process sent to pediatric PNES experts. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. The systematic search identified 77 studies, the majority (55%) of which were retrospective (only one randomized clinical trial). The primary means of PNES identification was video electroencephalography (vEEG) in 84% of studies. Better outcome was associated with access to counseling/psychological intervention. Children with PNES have more frequent psychiatric disorders than controls. The Delphi resulted in 22 recommendations: Assessment—There was consensus on the importance of (1) taking a comprehensive developmental history; (2) obtaining a description of the events; (3) asking about potential stressors; (4) the need to use vEEG if available parent, self, and school reports and video recordings can contribute to a “probable” diagnosis; and (5) that invasive provocation techniques or deceit should not be employed. Management—There was consensus about the (1) need for a professional with expertise in epilepsy to remain involved for a period after PNES diagnosis; (2) provision of appropriate educational materials to the child and caregivers; and (3) that the decision on treatment modality for PNES in children should consider the child's age, cognitive ability, and family factors. Comorbidities—There was consensus that all children with PNES should be screened for mental health and neurodevelopmental difficulties. Recommendations to facilitate the assessment and management of PNES in children were developed. Future directions to fill knowledge gaps were proposed.

Abstract Purpose: The aims of the Advocate-BREAST project are to study and improve the breast cancer (BC) patient experience through education and patient-centered research. Methods: In December 2021, an electronic REDCap survey was circulated to 6,918 BC survivors (stage 0-4) enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry. The questionnaire asked about satisfaction with BC care delivery, and education and support receive(d) regarding BC linked concerns. Patients also ranked Quality Improvement (QI) proposals. Results: The survey received 2,437 responses. 18% had Ductal Carcinoma in Situ, 81% had early breast cancer (EBC), i.e. stage 1-3, and 2% had metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Mean age was 64 (SD 11.8), and mean time since diagnosis was 93 months (SD 70.2). 69.3% of patients received all care at Mayo Clinic. The overall experience of care was good (>90 %). The main severe symptoms recalled in year 1 were alopecia, eyebrow/eyelash thinning, hot flashes, sexual dysfunction, and cognitive issues. The main concerns recalled were fear of BC recurrence/spread; loved ones coping; fear of dying, and emotional health. Patients were most dissatisfied with information regarding sexual dysfunction, eyebrow/eyelash thinning, peripheral neuropathy, and on side effects of immunotherapy/targeted therapies. Top ranking QI projects were: i) Lifetime access to concise educational resources; ii) Holistic support programs for MBC and iii) Wellness Programs for EBC and MBC. Conclusions: Patients with early and advanced BC desire psychological support, concise educational resources, and holistic care. Implications: Focused research and QI initiatives in these areas will improve the BC patient experience

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline’s screening recommendations.

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer address all aspects of management for breast cancer. The treatment landscape of metastatic breast cancer is evolving constantly. The therapeutic strategy takes into consideration tumor biology, biomarkers, and other clinical factors. Due to the growing number of treatment options, if one option fails, there is usually another line of therapy available, providing meaningful improvements in survival. This NCCN Guidelines Insights report focuses on recent updates specific to systemic therapy recommendations for patients with stage IV (M1) disease.

Abstract Background: The high-level aims of the Advocate-BREAST study are to study and improve the overall experience of patients with breast cancer (BC) through education, shared decision making, and patient-centered clinical trials. Assessing areas of unmet need in care delivery and research as identified by patients with BC will direct future research and help us improve the patient experience. Methods: In April 2022, an electronic RedCap survey was circulated to 6,918 BC survivors (stage 0-4 disease) enrolled in the prospectively consented Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry (MCBDR), which includes rural-dwelling women often underrepresented in cancer care delivery research. The questionnaire asked about satisfaction with multiple aspects of cancer care delivery and the education and support patients receive(d) regarding practical, financial, emotional, societal and spiritual concerns linked to BC. Patients were also asked to rank potential Quality Improvement (QI) projects in order of the likelihood the proposal could improve quality of life for BC patients and their families. Questions regarding clinical trial participation, use of integrative medicine and perspectives on medical second opinions were also included. Responses were collected via anonymous local language questionnaires. Results: The survey received 2,451 responses from MCBDR enrollees. 13% of respondents had Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS), 83% had early breast cancer (EBC) (Stage 1-3) and 4% had metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Mean age was 64 (SD 11.9), and mean time in months since diagnosis was 93 (SD 1.42). 69.3 % of patients received all care at Mayo Clinic; 24.7% at Mayo and another healthcare organization, and 6% at a non-Mayo site. Although the overall experience of care was generally good/excellent (&gt; 90 %), gaps were perceived in terms of information provision, continuity of care (including survivorship care after 5 years), navigating care transitions, and timely access to mental health resources. The main severe symptoms patients recalled in year 1 were hair loss, eyebrow/eyelash thinning, hot flashes, sexual dysfunction and cognitive issues. The main concerns patients recalled in the first year following diagnosis were fear of BC recurrence and spread as well as of dying, practical and emotional concerns for family members if they were to die of BC, and their emotional health. Patients were most dissatisfied with information and support related to management of lymphedema, sexual dysfunction, eyebrow/eyelash thinning, and peripheral neuropathy. Respondents overwhelmingly voiced the need for the following QI projects: i) lifetime access to online patient educational resources: including summary “cheat sheets”; ii) educational, practical, emotional and holistic support programs for MBC patients, and iii) BC Wellness Programs for EBC and MBC patients (endorsed by 82.6%; 82.4% and 81.9% of respondents, respectively). Predictors in terms of age, time since diagnosis, and cancer stage that may account for satisfaction with care, concerns, or QI preferences will be reported at the meeting. Of 20% of patients who saw an Integrative Medicine provider, 85% were satisfied/very satisfied with the care received. Of ~40% of patients who received a second opinion regarding their BC diagnosis and treatment plan, 96% found this beneficial. 47% of respondents had participated in a clinical trial, which is higher than seen in the general population such that conclusions may not be generalizable. Of those who had not participated in a study, 30% reported that they were unsure if they would participate in a trial if offered, and 9% reported that they would decline same. Conclusion: Understanding the lived experiences of persons with BC is essential to improve quality of care. Patients with early and advanced BC desire holistic care, continuity of care, concise educational resources and early psychological support. Citation Format: Kathryn Ruddy, Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Nicole Larson, Robert A. Vierkant, Mary Lou Smith, Cynthia Chauhan, Fergus J. Couch, Janet Olson. Advocate-BREAST: Advocates and Patients’ Advice to Enhance Breast Cancer Care Delivery, Patient Experience and Patient Centered Research by 2025 [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 P6-05-41.

The therapeutic options for patients with noninvasive or invasive breast cancer are complex and varied. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer include recommendations for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, and management of breast cancer during pregnancy. The content featured in this issue focuses on the recommendations for overall management of ductal carcinoma in situ and the workup and locoregional management of early stage invasive breast cancer. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, visit NCCN.org .