Alfano, Catherine M.

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 https://www.asco.org/practice-patients/guidelines/guideline-methodology . ASCO Guidelines follow the https://www.asco.org/about-asco/legal/conflict-interest-coi . 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 clinicians 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 Appendix 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To offer clinicians recommendations concerning breast cancer follow-up and surveillance after primary treatment. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process. RESULTS One randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified and formed the evidentiary basis for the surveillance mammography guideline recommendation. No RCTs were identified that evaluated different follow-up approaches by risk of relapse in patients treated for early-stage breast cancer. Given the dearth of evidence identified in the systematic review of the literature, formal modified Delphi consensus-based recommendations were generated. RECOMMENDATIONS The guideline offers recommendations on the role of a risk-based approach to the frequency and intensity of follow-up among patients with breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Either virtual or in-person visits can be offered. Certain patients at a high risk of cancer recurrence warrant closer surveillance, such as those patients with locally advanced disease or residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Recommendations on the use of blood-based biomarkers and supplemental imaging are provided. Guideline recommendations will be updated once additional evidence-based tools become available to better individualize surveillance. Additional information is available at www.ascopubs.org/topics/asco-guidelines/breast-cancer .

Abstract BACKGROUND: Obesity is prevalent in Hispanic patients (pts) with breast cancer (BC), but this population is often underrepresented in studies of weight loss interventions (WLIs). The BWEL trial (Alliance A011401; NCT02750826) is a phase III randomized trial testing the impact of a 2-year (yr) telephone-based WLI on invasive disease-free survival in pts with stage II-III HER2-negative BC and a body mass index (BMI) > 27 kg/m2. At 12 months (mo), Hispanic pts lost less weight than White pts on the WLI. Here, we evaluate differences in intervention engagement over the first 12 mo by language preference and ethnicity among BWEL pts on the WLI. METHODS: BWEL randomized pts 1:1 to WLI + health education (HE) or HE alone. WLI +HE pts received semi-structured telephone-based health coaching in English or Spanish, in addition to access to an activity monitor, wireless scale and meal replacement shakes. Pts self-reported ethnicity and their preferred language for the WLI. Kruskal Wallis and chi-square tests were used to assess language and ethnicity differences in demographic and treatment factors for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Percent weight change and mean values for intervention attrition, number of calls, call duration, number of shake shipments, and frequency of activity monitor use and weight tracking over 12 mo were compared between Spanish-preferred Hispanic pts (SH), English-preferred Hispanic (EH) pts and non-Hispanic (NH) pts using ANOVA. Pts with missing language, ethnicity or 12 mo weight data were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: 1591 pts were randomized to the WLI + HE from 08/2018 to 02/2021. 80.5% of pts were White, 12.8% Black and 7.1% Hispanic. 1190 pts had 12 mo weight and language available. Among the 87 WLI + HE pts who had available data and identified as Hispanic, 34% were SH and 66% EH. SH WLI pts were younger (in yrs: 49.5 SH, 51.1 EH, 53.9 NH, p=0.006) and had lower BMI (32.2 SH, 35.1 EH, 34.5 NH, p=0.007). At 12 mo, SH WLI pts lost 2.4% of baseline body weight vs 3.3% in EH and 5.1% in NH (p=0.051) (Table). Compared with EH and NH WLI pts, SH WLI pts participated in fewer calls (15.7 SH, 21.1 EH, 24.3 NH, p< 0.0001), had fewer days of activity monitor use (134.2 SH, 177.3 EH, 205.3 NH, p=0.015) and fewer days of weight tracking (65.3 SH, 96.8 EH, 148.2 NH, p<0.0001), but had more shake shipments (3.9 SH, 3.5 EH, 3.0 NH, p=0.015). There were no significant differences in attrition rate or call duration by language preference or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: In a large phase III WLI study in breast cancer patients, engagement with the WLI appeared lower in SH pts, despite provision of the intervention in Spanish. More work is needed to improve accessibility and efficacy of WLI studies among non-English speaking populations. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Citation Format: A. Odai-Afotey, K. V. Ballman, L. M. McCall, C. Cao, C. Alfano, V. Bernstein, T. E. Crane, L. M. Delahanty, L. Frank, P. J. Goodwin, O. Hahn, D. L. Hershman, J. O. Hopkins, M. Irwin, E. L. Mayer, L. Minasian, L. Nebeling, M. Neuhouser, E. D. Paskett, P. A. Spears, V. Stearns, C. A. Thomson, T. A. Wadden, A. Weiss, J. White, C. Hudis, E. P. Winer, L. Carey, A. H. Partridge, J. Ligibel. Variation in weight loss and intervention engagement in the Breast Cancer Weight Loss (BWEL) trial by language and ethnicity (Alliance) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS4-09-29.

Abstract Background: Obesity is a poor prognostic factor in early breast cancer (BC). The BWEL trial (Alliance A011401; NCT02750826) is a phase 3 randomized trial testing the impact of a weight loss intervention (WLI) on invasive disease-free survival in women with stage II-III BC and a body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m2. Here we report trajectories of weight change in BWEL WLI participants (pts). Methods: Eligible pts were within 16 months of diagnosis of stage II-III HER2-negative BC, had completed chemotherapy (chemo) and radiation (if given), and were randomized 1:1 to a telephone-based WLI, focused on caloric restriction and exercise, plus health education (HE) or to an HE-alone control group. WLI pts were assigned a trained coach at the BWEL call center and received 42 phone calls over the 2-year (yr) WLI period. Weight and height at baseline, 6 and 24 months were collected by study staff. All WLI pts were provided with a Fitbit wireless scale. Fitbit weight records (FWRs) were automatically imported to the BWEL portal for pts with wireless access and self-reported in the portal for pts without wireless access. FWRs were averaged (avg) by week (wk) from the WLI start date up to 104 wks. Baseline pt factors were self-reported; treatment history was abstracted from the medical record. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate trajectories of weight change over the 104-wk WLI. Principal component analysis and multinomial models were used to examine distinct clusters of weight trajectories. Results: 3180 pts were enrolled from 637 sites between 8/2016 and 2/2021. FWRs were available from 1508 of 1591 WLI pts, with a total of 366,294 FWRs collected during the 2-yr WLI period. In pts with FWRs, mean baseline BMI was 34.4 ± 5.6 kg/m2, mean age was 53.2 ± 10.3 yrs, 10.8% self-identified as Non-Hispanic (NH) Black and 6.1% as Hispanic, 81.1% received chemo and 56.9% were postmenopausal. No statistically significant differences in baseline factors were observed between pts with and without FWRs. Intraclass correlation coefficient of baseline weights collected by study staff and by Fitbit scales was 0.99. In the WLI cohort, avg weekly weight (kg) decreased from 91.4 (95% CI: 90.6-92.3) at baseline to 85.6 (95% CI: 84.8-86.5) by wk 40, corresponding to a peak loss of 6.1% (95% CI: 5.7-6.4) of baseline weight. Weight remained stable until wk 52 and then gradually increased to 87.0 kg (95% CI: 86.2-87.9) at wk 104, corresponding to a 4.4% (95% CI: 4.0-4.8) loss at wk 104 vs. baseline. Principal component analysis identified 3 distinct weight trajectories: 67.6% of pts experienced peak weight loss of 6.6% (95% CI: 6.3-6.9) of baseline weight, 10.0% experienced peak loss of 17.5% (95% CI: 16.8-18.2) of baseline weight, and 22.4% did not achieve weight loss, gaining on avg 2.2% (95% CI: 1.7-2.6) of baseline weight. Pts with college (relative risk ratio [RRR]=1.41, 95% CI: 1.03-1.92) and post-graduate education (RRR= 1.58, 95% CI: 1.13-2.20) and those who were premenopausal (RRR=1.70, 95% CI: 1.28-2.26) were more likely to be in the cluster that did not lose weight. Pts who were NH White (RRR=3.60, 95% CI: 1.95-6.68), postmenopausal (RRR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.28-2.95), had no alcohol use (RRR=1.49, 95% CI: 1.03-2.16), had not received chemo (RRR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.15-2.72), and had <3 chronic conditions (RRR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.23-3.66) were more likely to be in the cluster with the highest weight loss. Conclusion: Longitudinal weight data from BWEL demonstrate peak weight loss of 6.1% in the WLI cohort at 40 wks, with distinct trajectories indicating differential responses to the WLI. This work demonstrates the feasibility of using digital health tools to track outcomes in the setting of a large-scale weight loss intervention study and informs future precision behavioral interventions in oncology. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823; U10CA180863. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Citation Format: C. Cao, K. Ballman, L. McCall, C. Alfano, V. Bernstein, T. Crane, L. Delahanty, L. Frank, P. Goodwin, O. Hahn, D. Hershman, J. Hopkins, M. Irwin, E. Mayer, L. Minasian, L. Nebeling, M. Neuhouser, E. Paskett, P. Spears, V. Stearns, C. Thomson, T. Wadden, A. Weiss, J. White, C. Hudis, E. Winer, A. Partridge, L. Carey, J. Ligibel. Weight Trajectories in the Breast Cancer Weight Loss (BWEL) Trial (Alliance) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD8-01.

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 < .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

This article presents a clinical screening and referral framework to enable health care professionals to guide individuals with cancer to safe and effective exercise programs.

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence‐based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health‐related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home‐based or community‐based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.

Adults with cancer are at risk of restricted functioning in work, usual activities, life roles, and quality of life both during and after cancer treatment. Herein, the authors discuss unique opportunities to examine how cancer rehabilitation, delivered as part of cancer and survivorship care, might help to achieve the quadruple aim of better patient health, better patient experience, and lower cost for patients who receive services, as well as improving the work life of clinicians and staff.

PURPOSE: Obesity and related factors have been linked to cancer risk and outcomes, but little information exists with regard to oncologists’ attention to these issues as a part of clinical care. METHODS: Oncology providers actively caring for patients with cancer in the United States and internationally were asked to complete an online survey about practice patterns and perceptions with regard to obesity and weight management during and after active cancer treatment. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-one practicing oncology providers completed the survey. The majority of respondents indicated a belief that the evidence linking obesity to cancer outcomes was strong and that weight and related factors should be addressed as a part of cancer treatment. The majority of respondents also reported that they frequently assessed body weight and related factors as well as counsel their patients to exercise, consume a healthy diet, and lose weight, if applicable. However, referral to providers and programs to support weight loss and increased physical activity occurred less frequently, and a number of barriers were identified for the incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs in the treatment of patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: In a survey of oncology providers, attention to weight management, physical activity, and diet in patients with cancer was high during and after cancer treatment but often did not result in referrals to support lifestyle change. Future work is needed to support education and training of oncology providers to facilitate referrals and overcome barriers to implementation of weight management and physical activity programs for patients with cancer.

Participation refers to a state of health in which a person is able to fully engage in roles and life situations. Adults living with and beyond cancer often report persistent participation restrictions that affect their productivity and quality of life. The American Occupational Therapy Foundation convened a group of scientists from seven different disciplines in a Planning Grant Collective (PGC) to stimulate research to identify scalable ways to preserve and optimize participation among cancer survivors. Participants identified challenges, prioritized solutions, and generated novel research questions that move beyond symptom and impairment mitigation as outcomes to identify interventions that improve participation in roles and life situations. This article summarizes the PGC discussion and recommendations regarding three challenges: (a) the dynamic and multi-faceted nature of participation, (b) a need to integrate the concept of participation within the culture of oncology, and (c) identification of priority areas in which new lines of research regarding participation would be most impactful.

The number of survivors of cancer in the United States, already 14.5 million, is growing with improved cancer treatment and aging of the population. Two-thirds of cancer survivors will be older than age 65 and are likely to enter cancer treatment already deconditioned and with multiple comorbidities. Survivors of cancer face numerous adverse consequences of cancer treatment that add to or exacerbate the effects of existing comorbidities and increase risk of functional decline. Many of these problems are amenable to rehabilitation interventions, but referral to cancer rehabilitation professionals is not a standard part of care. We present an expanded prospective model of surveillance, cancer rehabilitation assessment, and referral efforts using a multidisciplinary team approach. In this model, cancer rehabilitation begins at the time of cancer diagnosis and continues through and beyond cancer treatment. Physical impairments and psychosocial symptoms are assessed and treated, and lifestyle and exercise interventions are provided to optimize functioning, health, and quality of life. We present a stepped-care framework to guide decisions on when, how, and where to refer survivors to cancer rehabilitation specialists depending on safety requirements and needs. This model has the potential to result in early identification of symptoms and impairments, appropriate referral and timely treatment, and, in turn, will better address and minimize both acute and long-term cancer morbidity.