Lee, Minji K

PURPOSE Patients with breast cancer requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) often desire breast reconstruction. Reconstructions can be adversely affected by PMRT, and fear of reconstruction complications has discouraged adoption of short-course radiation therapy used after lumpectomy. To fill the evidence gap, we conducted a noninferiority trial of hypofractionated versus conventional PMRT in patients undergoing breast reconstruction. The primary outcome was reconstruction complication rate, a composite of wound healing, readmission, capsular contracture, unplanned reoperation, and reconstruction failure. METHODS Women with unilateral invasive breast cancer with planned immediate or delayed reconstruction and PMRT were randomly assigned (1:1) to 50 Gy (25 fractions/5 weeks) or 42.56 Gy (16 fractions/3 weeks). This study was designed with a noninferiority margin of 10%, assuming a 2-year reconstruction complication rate of 25% with conventional PMRT. Randomization was stratified by immediate versus delayed and autologous versus implant-only reconstruction. RESULTS Between 2018 and 2021, 898 patients enrolled with a median follow-up of 3.9 years; 825 patients were evaluable for the primary end point. The 24-month reconstruction complication rates were 12.3% (52/422) with hypofractionated PMRT and 10.2% (41/403) with conventional PMRT, corresponding to an estimated difference of -2.1% (95% CI, -6.5 to 2.2). The complication rate was higher (regardless of arm) with implant-only versus autologous reconstruction (odds ratio = 1.65). There was no statistically significant difference in 36-month locoregional recurrence rates: 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7 to 3.2) with hypofractionated and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.1 to 4.3) with conventional PMRT. Acute and late toxicity rates were not statistically different. CONCLUSION A 16-fraction course of hypofractionated PMRT is safe and noninferior to conventional PMRT in women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy.

Financial toxicity is a significant but often overlooked consequence of cancer for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 15–39 years old), who face limited savings, unstable employment, and insurance gaps that heighten financial stress. As part of a larger initiative to determine whether our cancer center can use an existing social drivers of health (SDOH) screening process to identify patients who may benefit from targeted supportive interventions, we sought to characterize financial strain, toxicity, and SDOH needs in AYAs treated in our cancer center and compare them to both younger and older cancer patients. This is a cross-sectional observational study at Mayo Clinic of patients with an oncology-related department visit between 8 September 2023–4 June 2024 (N = 81,731) who completed routine institutional electronic screenings for financial strain and SDOH. Survey items assessed financial strain, transportation barriers, and food insecurity; institutional billing data captured financial toxicity (unresolved balances, collection referrals, write-offs). AYAs (n = 5655) were more likely than non-AYAs to report medium/high financial strain, have unpaid debt, or have an unresolved balance, referral to a collection agency, or bad debt write-off, with nearly double the odds of medium/high financial strain compared to patients over 40 (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.84–2.23, p < 0.001). Within AYAs, ages 26–32 bore the greatest burden: 24.2% in the medium/high-risk category, 9.4% with unresolved billing issues or collections, and 11.6% reporting food insecurity. These findings identify AYAs—particularly those 26–32—as a distinct high-risk group for financial toxicity and health-related social needs, underscoring the need for targeted interventions, tailored financial navigation, and policy efforts to reduce economic barriers to care. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in mitigating financial toxicity, addressing health-related social needs, and improving patient outcomes in this population.

Background/Objectives: The PRO-CTCAE Average Composite Score (ACS), calculated as the mean of PRO-CTCAE composite scores, summarizes overall symptom and side effect burden. This study evaluated the test–retest reliability, responsiveness to change, known-groups validity, and sensitivity to group differences in the ACS. Methods: Analyses used the original PRO-CTCAE validation dataset, including lung (n = 174), breast (n = 222), and head and neck (n = 139) cancer cohorts, and data from the COMET-2 randomized phase III trial comparing cabozantinib (n = 53) and mitoxantrone–prednisone (n = 54) in men with previously treated prostate cancer. Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) from two-way mixed-effects models for agreement. Responsiveness was evaluated by relating ACS change scores (Visit 1 minus follow-up Visit 2) to patient-reported global ratings of change (GRC; worsened, unchanged, or improved) using standardized response means (SRMs) and Jonckheere–Terpstra trend tests. Known-groups validity was examined by comparing mean ACS values between ECOG performance status groups (0–1 vs. 2–4). Sensitivity to treatment group differences was assessed using model-based area-under-the-curve (AUC) comparisons of longitudinal ACS trajectories. Results: Test–retest reliability was acceptable, with ICCs among GRC-defined stable patients of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70–0.87) in lung cancer, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77–0.89) in breast cancer, and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.63–0.86) in head and neck cancer; ICCs based on assessments completed one day apart ranged from 0.88 to 0.90. The ACS demonstrated responsiveness, with SRMs of 0.30/0.15/−0.37 (lung), 0.29/0.14/−0.40 (breast), and −0.01/−0.20/−0.56 (head/neck) for improved/no-change/worsened groups, respectively, and significant monotonic trends across GRC categories (all p < 0.01). Known-groups validity was supported by conceptually expected differences in ACS values across distinct levels of self-reported patient-reported physical functioning and ECOG performance status categories. Mean ACS values were lower among patients with good versus limited physical functioning (0.71 vs. 1.23 in lung cancer, 0.52 vs. 1.19 in breast cancer, and 0.69 vs. 1.29 in head and neck cancer) and among patients with ECOG PS 0–1 versus 2–4 (0.93 vs. 1.31, 0.74 vs. 1.22, and 0.90 vs. 1.06, respectively). In COMET-2, higher symptom burden was detected in the cabozantinib arm compared with the mitoxantrone–prednisone arm (AUC difference = 1.5, 95% CI: 0.2–2.8, p = 0.02). Conclusions: The ACS demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability, responsiveness, and known-groups validity across multiple cancer populations. These findings support its use as a complementary summary measure of overall symptomatic adverse event burden alongside individual symptom-level analyses.

Background/Objectives. Decades of research have failed to uncover effective approaches to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a common side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapy. Increased interest in placebo response as a potentially under-recognized confounder in CIPN trials was recently sparked by the results of a multisite NCI-funded phase II-III CIPN prevention study of duloxetine, a promising serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that enhances pain-inhibitory mechanisms within the central nervous system. Study findings revealed high and nearly equivalent response rates in three randomized treatment groups—little to no CIPN was reported by 65.2%, 66.0%, and 68.0% of study participants who received duloxetine 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo treatment, respectively. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of placebo response rates from seven randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials conducted over the past 20 years and comprising 191 placebo participants that were specifically testing interventions for oxaliplatin- and paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy and that serially collected patient responses on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy questionnaire. Additionally, we sought to identify trial- and patient-specific factors that predicted higher placebo response rates from a participant-level pooled analysis. Results. The placebo response rate was 10.0% [95% CI: 5.8%, 16.6%] when response was defined more conservatively as patients reporting no neuropathy at all. When the placebo response was defined more broadly based on patients reporting no or a little neuropathy, the placebo response rate was higher (39.6% [95% CI: 27.4%, 53.2%]). Male participants, receipt of oxaliplatin, and a 2:1 randomization ratio favoring the intervention arm were individually associated with a higher placebo response. Conclusions. High placebo response rates can threaten scientific progress toward identifying effective treatments for cancer treatment-associated side effects, like CIPN. Careful attention to study design factors, participant eligibility, and patient and research staff expectations may help to minimize placebo response rates in future CIPN intervention studies.

PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A221805) was to screen two doses of duloxetine for preventing sensory oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHODS Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once daily 30 mg duloxetine, 60 mg duloxetine, or placebo. Eligible participants had stage II to III colorectal cancer and no baseline neuropathy, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, were age 25 years and older, and received oxaliplatin via one of the following doses and schedules: 85 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks (6 or 12 doses) or 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (4 doses). Duloxetine/placebo was taken once daily beginning day 1 of cycle 1 and continued for 17 weeks. The primary end point, a composite response reflecting sensory OIPN symptom severity and onset, was measured in weeks 19-21 using a validated participant-reported outcome survey assessing extremity numbness, tingling, and pain. Response was defined as a participant-reported highest score of ≤2 (ie, 1 = not at all; 2 = a little) on survey items. To be evaluable for the response end point, eligible participants must have initiated oxaliplatin and submitted ≥1 postbaseline OIPN survey. RESULTS Of the 199 participants (n = 66, 30 mg duloxetine; n = 66, 60 mg duloxetine; n = 67, placebo), 46, 47, and 50 (N = 143, 71.8%), respectively, were evaluable for primary end point analysis based on modified intention-to-treat criteria. Participant mean age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 10.4). Most were White (n = 113, 80.7%) and male (n = 82, 58.6%). The proportion of responders among those receiving placebo (68.0%) was similar to those receiving duloxetine 30 mg (65.2%) or 60 mg (66.0%). Duloxetine adherence rates, measured via pill counts—30 mg (54%), 60 mg (57%), and placebo (59%) groups—were low (<75%). CONCLUSION Duloxetine is not more promising than placebo for preventing sensory OIPN.

Background: The PRO-CTCAE provides patient-reported data on symptomatic AEs. A summary metric—the ACS—reflecting total AE burden can be calculated by averaging AE-level composite scores at a given timepoint for each participant. This study investigated the psychometric properties and interpretability of this PRO-CTCAE ACS in patients with breast, lung, or head/neck cancers. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a PRO-CTCAE validation dataset comprising 940 adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02158637). We focused on empirically recommended symptom terms for three cancer sites. Analyses included Spearman’s correlations, coefficient alpha, and eigenvalues from the correlation matrices, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and principal component analysis (PCA). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to assess ACS interpretability in the lung cohort. Results: Mean composite score inter-correlations were moderate (0.30–0.35), and coefficient alphas were high (0.81–0.91). Eigenvalue ratios and CFA supported retention of a single factor/component, with suitable model fit indices. ACS correlated highly with factor scores and the first principal component from the PCA. Reduced sets of terms produced reliable scores that closely approximated the full set scores and aligned with external criteria. LPA in the lung subgroup identified four latent classes; ACS differentiated high vs. low symptom burden groups but did not distinguish the two groups expressing distinct symptom profiles. Conclusion: The ACS demonstrated structural validity through adequately fitting linear factor models and effectively summarized symptomatic AE burden. However, similar ACS values may mask clinically distinct symptomatic AE profiles, underscoring the value of both summary metrics and profile-based approaches.

Abstract Background The symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment can negatively affect patients’ quality of life and survival. Symptom-focused collaborative care model (CCM) interventions can improve outcomes, but only if patients engage with them. We assessed the receptivity of severely symptomatic oncology patients to a remote nurse-led CCM intervention. Methods In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute IMPACT Consortium (E2C2, NCT03892967), patients receiving cancer care were asked to rate their sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, fatigue, and limitations in physical function. Patients reporting at least 1 severe symptom (≥7/10) were offered phone consultation with a nurse symptom care manager (RN SCM). Initially, patients had to “opt-in” to receive a call, but the protocol was later modified so they had to “opt-out” if they did not want a call. We assessed the impact of opt-in vs opt-out framing and patient characteristics on receptiveness to RN SCM calls. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Of the 1204 symptom assessments (from 864 patients) on which at least 1 severe symptom was documented, 469 (39.0%) indicated receptivity to an RN SCM phone call. The opt-out period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 2.32, P = .01), receiving care at a tertiary care center (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 2.18 to 5.91, P &lt; .001), and having severe pain (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.62, P = .002) were associated with statistically significantly greater willingness to receive a call. Conclusions Many severely symptomatic patients were not receptive to an RN SCM phone call. Better understanding of reasons for refusal and strategies for improving patient receptivity are needed.