Spears, Patricia A.

PURPOSE Remote symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve symptom control and physical function among patients with advanced cancer. However, it is unclear whether these benefits are similar across demographic groups. This exploratory analysis of the PRO-TECT trial examined whether the effects of electronic symptom monitoring varied by race, age, sex, and educational attainment. METHODS PRO-TECT was a cluster randomized trial conducted across 52 US community oncology practices comparing weekly electronic symptom monitoring with usual care (UC). Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors receiving systemic therapy were enrolled (N = 1,191). Participants in the PRO arm completed weekly symptom surveys including the PRO-CTCAE, triggering alerts to the care team for severe or worsening symptoms. Patients chose whether to complete weekly PROs online or via telephone-based interactive voice response not requiring Internet access. Outcomes were measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 symptom control and physical function scales. Subgroup analyses were performed by race (Black v White), age (<65 v ≥65 years), sex (male v female), and educational attainment (≤high school v >high school). RESULTS From baseline to 3 months, PRO participants showed greater improvements in symptom control (+2.37 v −0.20, P = .002) and physical function (+1.54 v −0.93, P = .02) versus UC. Benefits were most pronounced among younger, female, Black, and less educated participants. Black participants in the PRO arm were more likely to report that symptom reporting made them feel more in control of their care compared with White participants. CONCLUSION Electronic symptom monitoring improved quality-of-life outcomes overall, including among groups who have historically experienced higher symptom burden or barriers to communication. Remote PRO systems may represent an equitable strategy to enhance cancer care delivery.

Importance Obesity is associated with a higher risk of recurrence, mortality, comorbidities, treatment-related adverse effects, and poor quality of life in patients with breast cancer. Scalable interventions are needed to promote weight loss in this population. Objective To evaluate the impact of a remotely delivered weight loss intervention (WLI) on weight change at 1 year in patients with breast cancer and obesity and to explore factors associated with weight change. Design, Setting, and Participants The Breast Cancer Weight Loss trial is a phase 3, randomized clinical trial evaluating the impact of a telephone-based WLI on invasive disease–free survival and other outcomes in women with obesity and early breast cancer at 637 sites across the US and Canada. Participants were enrolled to the study between August 2016 and February 2021. Participants included women with stage II to III, ERBB2 -negative breast cancer and a body mass index (BMI) of 27 or higher. Interventions Participants were randomized to a 2-year, telephone-based WLI plus health education or health education alone control group. Main Outcome and Measures The primary end point for this prespecified secondary analysis was weight change at 1 year. Weight was measured at baseline and 1 year, and changes in weight were compared between groups. Weight change was evaluated with a linear mixed-effects model including treatment group, weight over time, a time-by-group interaction, menopausal status, race and ethnicity, and hormone receptor status. Results A total of 3180 women with breast cancer and BMI of 27 and higher were included in the study; 1591 were randomized to the WLI and 1589 to the control group. At baseline, the mean (SD) age of participants was 53.4 (10.6), and the mean (SD) BMI was 34.4 (5.6). The racial and ethnic breakdown included 406 (12.8%) Black, 231 (7.3%) Hispanic or Latino, 2906 (91.4%) non-Hispanic, and 2555 (80.3%) White participants. WLI participants lost a mean of 4.3 kg (95% CI 3.9-4.6 kg), or 4.7% (95% CI, 4.3%-5.0%) of baseline body weight at 1 year vs control participants, who gained 0.9 kg (95% CI, 0.5-1.3 kg), or 1.0% (95% CI 0.1%-1.4%) of baseline body weight ( P &amp;lt; .001). Participants randomized to WLI experienced significant weight loss (vs control group participants) across demographic and tumor factors. WLI effect differed significantly by menopausal status, with postmenopausal participants having greater weight loss than premenopausal participants, and by race and ethnicity, with Black and Hispanic participants having less weight loss compared to other races and ethnicities. Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a telephone-based WLI induced significant weight loss in patients with breast cancer with overweight and obesity across demographic and treatment factors. Further follow-up of the Breast Cancer Weight Loss trial will evaluate whether the WLI improves disease outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02750826

PURPOSE Patients with cancer take different types of medications with varying schedules and settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medications due to toxicity. To measure self-reported nonadherence in this heterogeneous population, we modified and evaluated a measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral antihypertensives, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence). METHODS The measure was refined in an iterative process incorporating feedback from patient investigators and participant interviews in English and Spanish. Branching logic was added for participant selection of medication administration setting: (1) only home, (2) only clinic, or (3) partly home/partly clinic. Participants reported their adherence to medications taken over a setting-specific reference period (1 week for home, 1 month for clinic medications). Participants who missed medications then reported on reasons for nonadherence. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence v any nonadherence). For participants who received clinic-administered medications, concordance between chart-abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. RESULTS Seventy-three participants completed the measure (68% English; 32% Spanish; 86% female; 44% age ≥60 years). The majority had breast cancer; 64% had metastatic disease. Twenty-six percent (15/58) of participants who received medication in clinic and 24% (11/46) of those who took medication at home reported nonadherence. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both reference periods and perceived all reasons for nonadherence to be relevant. Among participants who completed the final version of the measure for clinic-administered medication, 96% (26/27) accurately reported their adherence compared with chart-abstracted data. CONCLUSION Our results support the validity of the DOSE-Nonadherence-Cancer for assessing cancer treatment nonadherence. This measure can be used to assess nonadherence in patients with cancer receiving a broad array of systemic therapies.

1586 Background: Black and Hispanic breast cancer (BC) survivors have a higher prevalence of obesity and experience less success with weight loss interventions (WLI) than White BC survivors. The BWEL trial (Alliance A011401; NCT02750826) is a phase III randomized trial evaluating the impact of a 2-year telephone-based WLI on invasive disease-free survival in participants (pts) with stage II-III HER2-negative BC and a BMI ≥ 27 kg/m 2 . At 12-months, the WLI induced significant weight loss across demographic factors, including race and ethnicity. However, Black and Hispanic pts lost less weight and completed fewer calls than White pts. Here, we evaluate intervention adherence, engagement and tool utilization in BWEL pts by race and ethnicity. Methods: BWEL randomized pts to a WLI plus health education (HE) or HE alone. WLI pts received semi-structured telephone-based health coaching, delivered in English or Spanish, and received an activity monitor and wireless scale. Pts self-reported race and ethnicity. Mean values for call duration, call density (time to complete the initial 12-week intensive intervention phase), intervention attrition, and frequency of Fitbit use and weight tracking over 12-months were compared by race and ethnicity, comparing least squares means with Tukey-Kramer adjustment for multiple comparisons with adjusted p-values. Results: Of 3181 pts randomized to the study between 08/2016 and 02/2021, 1591 pts were allocated to the WLI arm. 80.5% of pts were White, 12.8% Black, and 7.1% Hispanic. Average BMI was 34.5 (±5.7) kg/m2. Compared to White pts, Black pts had fewer days of Fitbit usage (113.6 vs. 159.8, p<0.0001) and weight tracking (77.9 vs. 135.6 days, p< 0.0001). Hispanic pts had fewer days of Fitbit usage (108.8 vs. 154.9, p= 0.001) and weight tracking (87 vs. 129.5 days, p=0.0002) compared to non-Hispanic pts. There were no differences in attrition rate, average call duration, or call density by race or ethnicity. Conclusions: In a phase III WLI trial, engagement with tools designed to support weight loss was significantly lower in Black and Hispanic pts. Future work is needed to explore ways to enhance engagement and improve weight loss outcomes for racial and ethnic minority pts. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT02750826 . Measure of engagement Race Ethnicity WhiteN=1281 BlackN=204 p-value Non-HispanicN=1459 HispanicN=113 p-value Withdrew from intervention n (%) 58 (4.5%) 13 (6.4%) 0.56 70 (4.8%) 6 (5.3%) 0.51 Call Duration (min)Mean (SD) 34.5 (7.6) 34.6 (9.1) 0.99 34.6 (7.8) 33.3 (7.9) 0.25 Call density(weeks)Mean (SD) 14.2 (7.2) 14.2 (8.8) 0.99 14.2 (7.3) 14.2 (9.7) 0.99 Days of Fitbit UseMean (SD) 159.8 (132.2) 113.6 (124.7) < 0.0001 154.9 (131.8) 108.8 (125.7) 0.001 Days of weight trackingMean (SD) 135.6 (109.5) 77.9 (87.5) < 0.0001 129.5 (108.8) 87 (96.5) 0.0002

PURPOSE Many trials ask patients to complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) via the web, excluding patients unable to use/access the Internet. The PRO-TECT trial (AFT-39, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ) also offered a telephone interface option (interactive voice response [IVR]). We compared patients choosing IVR versus web on alert rates to nurses and clinical outcomes to determine if a telephone option can close disparities in symptom management. METHODS PRO-TECT randomized 26 community oncology practices to the PROM intervention arm where concerning symptoms generated automated alerts to nurses. IVR and web patients were compared for social determinants of health (SDOH) using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. After accounting for clustering and confounders, we used generalized estimating equations to compare alert rates, mixed models for quality of life (QOL) at 3 months, and Cox regression for emergency visits and survival at 12 months. RESULTS Among 593 patients, 215 (36%) chose IVR and 378 (64%) chose web. IVR patients were older (65.2 v 60.8 years) and were more often rural residents (32% v 23%), Black (27% v 11%), and with less education (54% v 27% ≤high school; all P < .01). Patients choosing IVR had more surveys with concerning symptoms (49% v 37%) and nurses felt clinical attention was warranted more often (4.8 surveys v 3.4 surveys; all P < .001) but ultimately experienced similar benefits as web in QOL, emergency visits, and survival. CONCLUSION One third of community patients choose a telephone option over the web for reporting PROMs during cancer care. These patients are disproportionately from SDOH backgrounds at risk of poor clinical outcomes and have higher symptom management needs but ultimately experience similar clinical benefits as patients choosing the web. PROM programs should offer web alternatives to close disparities in symptom management.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Anti-HER2 therapies have transformed the trajectory for patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) MBC. A subset of patients with HER2+ MBC do exceptionally well and remain on maintenance anti-HER2 therapy for many years. However, current therapy is non-curative and patients are treated indefinitely. While these therapies often are well-tolerated, they may cause significant toxicities, are expensive, and typically require frequent infusion and provider visits. Case reports and retrospective series demonstrate that some patients may do well after stopping anti-HER2 treatment. We currently lack prospective data on the likelihood of clinical impact of successful treatment discontinuation, outcomes among patients who progress and restart HER2-directed therapy, and tools to predict who may safely stop therapy. In this study, we will enroll pts with an exceptional response to anti-HER2 therapy. Pts may elect to either continue or stop anti-HER2 therapy and will be followed clinically and radiographically on a protocol-specified schedule. Considering the central role of patients in choosing the study intervention arm, and the unique nature of stopping therapy as a treatment intervention, patient advocates have been deeply involved in the study design to ensure patient concerns are being heard and addressed. We will retrospectively assess minimal residual disease (MRD), measured in plasma, as a biomarker of ongoing response, in a step toward shifting the treatment paradigm for pts with HER2+ MBC. METHODS: STOP-HER2 is a prospective, non-randomized, phase II, multicenter study of either continuation (cohort 1) or cessation (cohort 2) of anti-HER2 therapy in exceptional responders with HER2+ MBC. Eligible patients must have biopsy-proven HER2+ MBC by ASCO/CAP guidelines and must have been receiving first-line anti-HER2 therapy for MBC for at least 3 years without evidence of progressive disease (PD) as determined by the treating investigator. Patients with prior brain-only PD or oligo-PD outside the brain are eligible at least 2 years after local treatment to the central nervous system (CNS) and in absence of subsequent PD. Up to fifty-two participants will be enrolled into cohort 2, and an additional thirty participants enrolled into the cohort 1, at 10 US sites within the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium. Co-primary endpoints are the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) in cohorts 2 and 1, separately. Secondary endpoints include the clinical benefit rate upon re-initiation of anti-HER2 therapy for patients in cohort 2 experiencing PD after treatment discontinuation; and 3-year overall survival in both cohorts. Correlative endpoints include MRD status at baseline and the correlation between MRD dynamics and outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes will be collected and analyzed, including quality of life, illness intrusiveness, financial toxicity, anxiety, and decision regret. The study will use a two-stage design to assess the primary objective of estimating the rate of participants who are free of progression at one year after discontinuing anti-HER2 therapy. If 50% or less are free of progression at one year, stopping HER2 therapy would not be considered a viable treatment plan (null hypothesis). The study is designed to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 10% type I error rate when 68% of exceptional responders are free of progression at one year after stopping HER2 therapy. STOP-HER2 began enrollment in Q2 2023 (NCT05721248). Citation Format: Heather Parsons, Kathryn Ruddy, Stefania Morganti, Karen Smith, Victoria Attaya, Eliza Kallfelz, Michelle DeMeo, Jamie LaScala, Shirley Mertz, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Adam Brufsky, Chau Dang, Susan Dent, Ahmed Elkhanany, WIlliam Gwin, Ciara O'Sullivan, Kathy Miller, Sara Nunnery, Elaine Walsh, Anna Maria Storniolo, Sara Tolaney, Nabihah Tayob, Antonio Wolff, Eric Winer, Mothaffar Rimawi, Ian Krop, Nancy Lin. The STOP-HER2 Trial: A Phase 2 Study of Stopping Trastuzumab - Outcomes in Patients with HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer (TBCRC 062) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO2-20-01.

Abstract Background. Breast cancer (BC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death in young women worldwide, and late recurrence of hormone receptor-positive disease plays a substantial role. Adjuvant endocrine therapy with 5 years of ovarian function suppression (OFS) and an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen is recommended for many young patients with high risk hormone receptor-positive BC. Data are limited regarding extended endocrine therapy among premenopausal BC survivors, and non-existent to inform treatment decisions regarding extending OFS beyond 5 years. We sought to evaluate young BC survivors’ perceptions and preferences regarding extending OFS beyond 5 years, and consideration of a potential future study to assess the role of extended OFS. Methods. From January-April 2023, email invites were sent to the Young Survival Coalition (YSC) listserv (N=14,291) specifically asking members with a history of invasive BC (≤45 years at diagnosis; stage I-III without metastatic recurrence) receiving OFS injections for adjuvant endocrine treatment to complete a one-time anonymous online survey. The survey was designed to capture information regarding current endocrine therapy use, patient-provider communication regarding extended endocrine therapy including OFS, OFS-related concerns (rating 0-5 [low: 0-1, moderate: 2-3, severe: 4-5]), and interest in a potential future clinical trial utilizing OFS beyond 5 years. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize responses, and two-sided Fishers exact tests and chi-square analyses were used for comparisons. Results. A total of 1,030 YSC members completed the survey, and 615 were analyzed due to eligibility and completeness of data. The majority were from the United States (n=579, 94.1%) or Canada (n=8, 1.3%), were non-Hispanic white (n=452, 73.5%), non-Hispanic Black (n=46, 7.5%), or Hispanic (n=43, 7.0%), and had been diagnosed with stage II BC (n=316, 51.4%). The average age at survey was 38.1 years (SD=5.15, range=22-54) and at initial BC diagnosis was 34.6 years (SD=4.96, range=20-49). Most (n=510, 83.0%) were within their first 5 years of OFS treatment while 14.5% (n=89) had already been receiving OFS for more than 5 years. Many respondents (n=344, 55.9%) reported discussing OFS use beyond 5 years with their provider, of whom 39.8% (n=245) reported their provider recommending they continue OFS for more than 5 years. Despite reporting moderate and severe concerns regarding OFS side effects (n=476, 77.4%), inconvenience of injection visits (n=272, 44.2%), and high cost of medication (n=223, 36.3%), most respondents (n=396, 64.4%) would consider continuing OFS beyond 5 years if it would reduce risk of BC recurrence. For nearly half of respondents (n=289, 47.0%) a risk reduction of at least 5% would be required for extended OFS to be worthwhile compared to the remaining 46.3% (n=285) who indicated interest for &lt; 5% risk reduction. When asked hypothetically if they would take part in a clinical trial to determine efficacy of OFS use beyond 5 years, the majority were interested (n=357, 58.0%). Respondents who were interested were less likely to be concerned about the high cost of medication (p=0.003) however they were also less likely to take OFS beyond 5 years if it only led to 1-2% BC risk reduction (p=0.006) compared to those who were not interested. There were no other proportional differences on any other outcome. Conclusion. Many BC survivors and providers are already considering incorporation of OFS beyond 5 years into adjuvant endocrine therapy despite harboring concerns and lack of data. Efforts to determine the efficacy and benefits of extended OFS are necessary given the risk of late recurrence in this population as well as the potential for significant short- and long-term toxicities. The results from this survey study suggest that future clinical trials evaluating potential benefits and risks of long-term OFS use among young BC survivors are needed and likely feasible. Citation Format: Kate Dibble, Tal Sella, Kathryn Ruddy, Craig Snow, Amanda Nixon, Patricia Spears, Karla Ballman, Lisa Carey, Ann Partridge. Ovarian function suppression (OFS) use beyond five years?: Young breast cancer patient preferences [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO4-01-11.

AbstractBackgroundBreast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic‐related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic‐era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic‐related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two‐sample t‐tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic‐related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.ResultsAmong 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate–severe pandemic‐related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research‐only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.ConclusionsWhile pandemic‐related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

PURPOSE Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention. METHODS PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. RESULTS One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices ( P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. CONCLUSION In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

Abstract Background: Historically, less than 10% of adult patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, however, enrollment dropped further at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to trial participation during the pandemic have not been reported. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey on the impact of the pandemic on willingness to participate in breast cancer trials, we assessed reasons for reluctance to participate in trials during the pandemic. Methods: US residents who self-reported a breast cancer diagnosis were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21-9/30/21. Respondents indicated whether they were current trial participants and, if not, their willingness to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic using a 5-point scale (0-not at all willing to 4-definitely willing). Respondents who were not current trial participants and who were not “definitely willing” to consider participation during the pandemic were characterized as “reluctant” and asked to select reasons for their reluctance from a checklist. Pandemic-related anxiety was assessed on an 11-point scale (0-no anxiety to 10-worst anxiety possible). Respondents indicated how the option to conduct trial activities online would affect their decision to participate in a trial (much less likely, somewhat less likely, would not affect my decision, somewhat more likely, or much more likely). In exploratory analyses, we evaluated whether pandemic-related anxiety and favorable reactions towards opportunities to conduct trial activities online were associated with reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic due to fear of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Means were compared with two sample t-tests and proportions with Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 385 survey respondents, 185 (48%) were characterized as reluctant to consider trial participation during the pandemic. Among these 185, median age was 55 (range 25-80), 85.7% were non-Hispanic White, 48.1% had metastatic disease and 44.2% received care at academic centers. Reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic cited by ≥15% of the 185 reluctant respondents are shown in the Table. Respondents who selected fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic had higher mean pandemic-related anxiety (7.0 vs 5.2, p&lt; 0.001). These respondents were more likely to indicate telemedicine doctor visits (p=0.01), virtual consents (p=0.001) and online study questionnaires (p=0.001) would make them somewhat or much more likely to participate in trials than respondents who did not select fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance. Conclusions: Reasons for reluctance of patients with breast cancer to consider participation in clinical trials during the pandemic are multifactorial. Although concerns about safety and efficacy remain prominent, fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 drives unwillingness to participate in &gt;25% of reluctant patients. Trial accrual may benefit from incorporation of electronic activities when possible. Table Citation Format: Karen L. Smith, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Gina L. Mazza, Albert E. Holler, Eileen Shinn, Elizabeth Frank, Michelle Melisko, Cyd Eaton, Jeannine M. Salamone, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. Reasons for Reduced Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) 057 Survey [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 P6-08-07.