Arnold, Kathryn B.

Abstract Background Breast cancer chemoprevention is underutilized among high-risk women. We examined whether decision support could increase informed decision making. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a patient-facing decision aid (RealRisks) and provider tool (BNAV) compared with standard education on the number of women with high-risk breast lesions making informed choices. Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was chemoprevention informed choice (defined as adequate knowledge and attitudes congruent with decision) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included breast cancer risk perceptions, worry, chemoprevention knowledge, decision conflict, and chemoprevention decision. Results Across 31 randomized sites, we enrolled 210 providers, who were primarily breast health specialists. Of these, 24 sites (14 intervention, 10 control) enrolled 412 patients. Among 287 patients evaluable for the primary outcome, there were no statistically significant differences in informed choice between the intervention and control arms at 6 months (35% vs 27%, respectively; P = .20) and 12 months (37% vs 25%, respectively; P = .05). At 6 months, women in the intervention compared with control arm were more likely to have accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (31% vs 21%, respectively; P = .03) and adequate chemoprevention knowledge (33% vs 23%, respectively; P = .04). At 12 months, 52% of women in the control and 50% in the intervention arm self-reported initiating chemoprevention. Conclusion Decision support led to modest improvements in accurate risk perceptions and chemoprevention knowledge but not informed choice. Relatively high chemoprevention uptake was achieved among women with high-risk breast lesions managed mainly by breast health specialists. Trial Registration NCT04496739, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04496739?cond=NCT04496739&viewType=Card&rank=1

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.

Abstract Background: Despite evidence of substantial breast cancer risk reduction, few high-risk women adopt chemopreventive medications such as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Women with benign breast disease, such as atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and derive a greater benefit from antiestrogens compared to other high-risk women. Reasons for low uptake of chemoprevention include insufficient patient and clinician knowledge about antiestrogens, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and concerns about side effects. To address these barriers, we have developed patient and provider web-based decision support tools to improve informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. Study design: We are conducting a cluster-randomized controlled trial of clinical decision support to improve chemoprevention informed choice among women with AH or LCIS and their treating providers. Twenty-six U.S. sites through the SWOG Cancer Research Network were randomly assigned 1:1 to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the patient-centered decision aid (RealRisks) and provider decision support tool (BNAV). A total of 415 patients and 200 healthcare providers will be recruited from these sites. RealRisks consists of interactive modules to calculate personalized breast cancer risk and elicit preferences on chemoprevention. The modules are available in English and Spanish. BNAV is comprised of self-directed case-based learning modules on breast cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention. Patients complete questionnaires at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Providers complete surveys at baseline and after their enrolled patient’s 6-month clinical encounter. The primary endpoint is chemoprevention informed choice at 6 months, using a measure combining knowledge, attitude, and intention scales. Secondary endpoints include perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge/intention, decision conflict/regret, shared decision-making, and chemoprevention uptake. For patients who begin chemoprevention, adherence and reasons for discontinuation are assessed annually for up to 5 years. Barriers and facilitators to implementing RealRisks and BNAV into clinic workflow will be assessed by conducting patient and provider interviews at baseline and mid-implementation. Eligibility criteria: Eligible patients include women, age 35-74 years, with AH or LCIS, no history of breast cancer, no prior use of SERMs or AIs, no bilateral mastectomies, English or Spanish-speaking, and access to the internet. Eligible providers include breast surgeons, medical oncologists, primary care providers, and physician extenders who see patients with AH or LCIS. Statistical methods: We have 90% power to detect a 15% increase in the frequency of chemoprevention informed choice with a 1-sided 0.025 level test, assuming an intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.02 to account for clustering, roughly equal accrual at each site, 10% loss to follow-up, and ≤10% event rate in the control arm. Current/target accrual: The trial was activated on 9/1/2020. As of 7/7/2022, all 26 sites have been randomized, 157/200 providers and 184/415 patients have been enrolled. Discussion: Our hybrid effectiveness/implementation study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level intervention in promoting informed decision-making about breast cancer chemoprevention. Study results will provide valuable insights on how the decision support tools are integrated in diverse clinical settings. Citation Format: Katherine D. Crew, Garnet Anderson, Kathryn Arnold, Andrew Stieb, Jacquelyn N. Amenta, Cynthia Law, Ana Sandoval-Leon, Sarah Colonna, Tari King, Debra Mangino, Sandhya Pruthi, Maria Grosse Perdekamp, Christa Braun-Inglis, Stacy Krisher, Lisa Yee, Danielle Bertoni, Samantha Seaward, Kari B. Wisinski, Justin Floyd, Corrine Zarwan, Tarah J. Ballinger, Lindi VanderWalde, Masey M. Ross, Preston Steen, Shelly Lo, Alison Conlin, Kathleen Yost, John Ellerton, Erin Lin, Holly J. Pederson, Sagar Sardesai, Cheryl Jernigan, Dawn Hershman, Marian L. Neuhouser, Banu K. Arun, Rita Kukafka. SWOG 1904: Cluster-randomized controlled trial of patient and provider decision support to increase chemoprevention informed choice among women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (MiCHOICE) [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 OT1-15-01.

Background: Prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine optimal treatment approaches for palliative care problems such as malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). Randomization poses unique issues for such studies, especially with divergent treatment approaches and varying levels of equipoise. We report our experience accruing randomized patients to the Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Malignant Bowel Obstruction (SWOG S1316) study, comparing surgical and nonsurgical management of MBO. Methods: Patients with MBO who were surgical candidates and had treatment equipoise were accrued and offered randomization to surgical or nonsurgical management. Patients choosing nonrandomization were offered prospective observation. Trial details are listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT #02270450). An accrual algorithm was developed to enhance enrollment. Results: Accrual is ongoing with 176 patients enrolled. Most (89%) patients chose nonrandomization, opting for nonsurgical management. Of 25 sites that have accrued to this study, 6 enrolled patients on the randomization arm. Approximately 59% (20/34) of the randomization accrual goal has been achieved. Patient-related factors and clinician bias have been the most prevalent reasons for lack of randomization. An algorithm was developed from clinician experience to aid randomization. Using principles in this tool, repeated physician conversations discussing treatment options and goals of care, and a supportive team–approach has helped increase accrual. Conclusions: Experience gained from the S1316 study can aid future palliative care trials. Although difficult, it is possible to randomize patients to palliative studies by giving clinicians clear recommendations utilizing an algorithm of conversation, allotment of necessary time to discuss the trial, and encouragement to overcome internal bias.

Abstract Background: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) was a 7-year randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy of finasteride for the prevention of prostate cancer with a primary outcome of histologically determined prevalence of prostate cancer at the end of 7 years. Methods: A systematic modeling process using logistic regression identified factors available at year 6 that are associated with end-of-study (EOS) biopsy adherence at year 7, stratified by whether participants were ever prompted for a prostate biopsy by year 6. Final models were evaluated for discrimination. At year 6, 13,590 men were available for analysis. Results: Participants were more likely to have the EOS biopsy if they were adherent to study visit schedules and procedures and/or were in good health (P < 0.01). Participants at larger sites and/or sites that received retention and adherence grants were also more likely to have the EOS biopsy (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Our results show good adherence to study requirements 1 year before the EOS biopsy was associated with greater odds that a participant would comply with the invasive EOS requirement. Impact: Monitoring adherence behaviors may identify participants at risk of nonadherence to more demanding study end points. Such information could help frame adherence intervention strategies in future trials. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(8); 1638–48. ©2014 AACR.