Chauhan, Cynthia

Background: There are limited evidence-based data to guide treatment recommendations for breast cancer (BC) patients ≥80 years (P80+). Identifying and addressing unmet needs are critical. Aims: Advocate-BREAST80+ compared the needs of P80+ vs. patients < 80 years (P80−). Methods: In 12/2021, a REDCap survey was electronically circulated to 6918 persons enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry. The survey asked about concerns and satisfaction with multiple aspects of BC care. Results: Overall, 2437 participants responded (35% response rate); 202 (8.3%) were P80+. P80+ were less likely to undergo local regional and systemic therapies vs. P80− (p < 0.01). Notably, P80+ were significantly less satisfied with information about the short and long-term side effects of BC therapies and managing toxicities. P80+ were also less likely to have participated in a clinical trial (p < 0.001) or to want to do so in the future (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Although P80+ experienced less anxiety and symptom-related distress compared with P80−, they were significantly less satisfied with information regarding the side effects of BC therapies and their management. P80+ were significantly less likely to have participated in a clinical trial or be open to considering this option. Future studies should address educational needs pertaining to side effects and barriers to research participation in P80+.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

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

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.

PURPOSE:This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment.METHODS:This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making.RESULTS:In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: “The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial” (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign.CONCLUSION:This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

PURPOSE To update the ASCO guideline on the recommended prevention and treatment approaches in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in adult cancer survivors. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify new studies. RESULTS The search strategy identified 257 new references, which led to a full-text review of 87 manuscripts. A total of 3 systematic reviews, 2 with meta-analyses, and 28 primary trials for prevention of CIPN in addition to 14 primary trials related to treatment of established CIPN, are included in this update. RECOMMENDATIONS The identified data reconfirmed that no agents are recommended for the prevention of CIPN. The use of acetyl-l-carnitine for the prevention of CIPN in patients with cancer should be discouraged. Furthermore, clinicians should assess the appropriateness of dose delaying, dose reduction, substitutions, or stopping chemotherapy in patients who develop intolerable neuropathy and/or functional impairment. Duloxetine is the only agent that has appropriate evidence to support its use for patients with established painful CIPN. Nonetheless, the amount of benefit from duloxetine is limited. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

The interrelationships between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are complex and poorly understood, yet the number of patients with AF and HF continues to increase worldwide. Thus, there is a need for initiatives that prioritize research on the intersection between AF and HF. This article summarizes the proceedings of a virtual workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify important research opportunities in AF and HF. Key knowledge gaps were reviewed and research priorities were proposed for characterizing the pathophysiological overlap and deleterious interactions between AF and HF; preventing HF in people with AF; preventing AF in individuals with HF; and addressing symptom burden and health status outcomes in AF and HF. These research priorities will hopefully help inform, encourage, and stimulate innovative, cost-efficient, and transformative studies to enhance the outcomes of patients with AF and HF.

6133 Background: Patient (pt) trial experience may give insight to quality of life (QOL) factors affecting accrual, retention and outcome. While pts are vital to clinical trial success, we know little about their post-trial opinions. This trial examined pt opinion of their trial and treatment decision making (TDM). Methods: Pts enrolled on designated North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) phase II or III treatment trials completed the TDM Control Preferences Scale at baseline and the Was It Worth It (WIWI) satisfaction assessment at the ends of cycle 1 and active protocol treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts reporting worthwhile participation. Fisher Exact tests compared pt opinion across subgroups. Results: As of 01/15/2012, 264 pts were enrolled on 25 protocols and treated at 79 sites. 86% of pts were in phase II studies and 89% had stage IV disease. At the end of cycle 1, pts felt the trial was worthwhile (74%), would do it again (85%), and would recommend it to others (82%). 85% of pts reported undiminished QOL and only 7% rated the trial worse than expected. End of treatment responses were similar. Satisfaction rates varied by tumor site (p=0.04). 11% of pts having tumor response rated the trial as not worthwhile, and 66% of pts with progressive disease rated it worthwhile (see table). Pts with concordant preferred and actual TDM roles rated participation higher than pts with discordant TDM roles (see table). Conclusions: Most pts endorsed their clinical trial experience. Contrary to popular beliefs, treatment outcome did not have an overwhelming impact on pt satisfaction, and was just one of many factors such as TDM role discordance. Assessing pt satisfaction will inform future study design that can potentially improve pt accrual and retention. [Table: see text]