Sloan, Jeff A.

Purpose The purpose of this pilot feasibility project was to examine the potential effectiveness of a digital storytelling intervention designed through a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach for immigrants and refugees with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods The intervention was a 12-minute culturally and linguistically tailored video consisting of an introduction, 4 stories, and a concluding educational message. A structured interview was used to assess the intervention for acceptability, interest level, and usefulness among 25 participants with T2DM (15 Latino, 10 Somali) across 5 primary care clinical sites. After watching the video, participants rated their confidence and motivation about managing T2DM as a result of the intervention. Baseline A1C and follow-up values (up to 6 months) were abstracted from medical records. Results All participants reported that the intervention got their attention, was interesting, and was useful; 96% reported that they were more confident about managing their T2DM than before they watched the video, and 92% reported that the video motivated them to change a specific behavior related to T2DM self-management. The mean baseline A1C level for the intervention participants was 9.3% (78 mmol/mol). The change from baseline to first follow-up A1C level was −0.8% (−10 mmol/mol) ( P < .05). Conclusions Implementation of a digital storytelling intervention for T2DM among immigrant populations in primary care settings is feasible and resulted in self-rated improvement in psychosocial constructs that are associated with healthy T2DM self-management behaviors, and there was some evidence of improvement in glycemic control. A large-scale efficacy trial of the intervention is warranted.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

97 Background: Optimal management of chronic medications is uncertain in life-limiting illness. To inform shared decision making, we assessed patient perceptions in a trial on the safety of discontinuing statins in life-limiting illness. Methods: Eligible adults (life expectancy 1–12 months, on statin for ≥ 3 months for primary/secondary prevention, recent functional decline, no active cardiovascular disease) were randomized to discontinue or continue statins and were followed monthly for up to 1 year. Cognitively intact participants were asked 9 questions regarding discontinuing statins prior to randomization. We used Pearson chi-square to compare responses between study groups and between those with and without cancer. Of 381 participants, 297 (78%) were cognitively intact (138 discontinued, 159 continued statins). Mean age was 72 years (SD 11) and mean number of medications used was 11.5 (SD 5.0); 58% (N = 173) had cancer. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in responses to the medication perception questions. Aggregate findings are presented (Table). Patients with cancer were less likely to think that they may be able to stop other medications (28% vs. 42%, p=0.007) and that statin discontinuation means that the doctor is giving up on them (1% vs. 7%, p=0.013). Conclusions: Few participants expressed concerns about discontinuing statins; many perceived potential benefits. Cancer patients may perceive less impact from stopping statins. Clinicians should inquire about patient concerns when engaging in shared decision making about discontinuing chronic medications in the setting of advanced cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT01415934. [Table: see text]

97 Background: A diagnosis of EC significantly impairs patient (pt)’s survival and quality of life (QoL). We explored the relationship between pt-assessed QoL and survival. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Romero (formerly Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Barrett's Esophagus) Registry prospectively collects clinical data during a pt's treatment course. QoL is recorded at enrollment (baseline) and annually using a validated 12-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment (LASA). A 10-pt scale is applied; ≤5 was termed clinically deficient QoL. Initial TNM staging, clinical (age, sex, prior chemotherapy, and esophagectomy), and socioeconomic variables (marital/employment status) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: 836 pts were analyzed. Median age was 64 years. 166, 506 and 164 pts had early, locally advanced, and metastatic EC, with 5-year survival rates of 75.1%, 33.6%, and 8.1%, respectively (P≤.0001). Poorer survival rates were seen in clinically QoL deficient pts in the following categories: Overall QoL (Hazard Ratio [H.R.] 0.66; 95% C.I., 0.54-0.80; P≤.0001) and LASA subsets for physical (H.R. 0.68; 95% C.I., 0.57-0.82; P≤.0001), emotional well-being (H.R. 0.69; C.I., 0.57-0.84; P=.0003), and social activity (H.R. 0.76; C.I., 0.63-0.91; P=.0028). No difference in survival was observed for marital or employment status, familial support, and financial/legal concerns. Pts with esophagectomy prior to LASA evaluation had improved survival (H.R. 0.68; 95% C.I., 0.55-0.85; P=.0005). No survival difference was observed whether pts received chemotherapy, before or after their baseline LASA evaluation. Conclusions: A strong association exists between pt’s overall survival and better overall QOL, physical, emotional well-being, and social activities. Using LASA to clinically monitor QoL at specified intervals may afford providers the opportunity to intervene when patients begin to experience QoL decline. The determinants of clinically deficit QoL and its impact on survival warrant further translational and prospective research.

396 Background: The 12-gene Oncotype DXColon Cancer Assay is clinically validated as a predictor of recurrence risk in stage II colon cancer patients following surgery. We previously reported that the 12-gene assay led to 45% change in physician treatment (Tx) recommendations in a prospective study in MMR-P stage IIA colon cancer patients. Here, from the same prospective study, we report the influence of the 12-gene assay on patient Tx decisions, physician confidence, concordance in Tx choice between physicians and patients, and patient decisional conflict. Methods: Consecutive patients with resected stage IIA colon cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled by 105 physicians from 17 sites. Patient's tumor specimens were assessed by the 12-gene assay (RT-PCR) and MMR (IHC). Prior to and after receiving these results, patients completed surveys including (1) their Tx decisions (observation (Obs) vs. 5FU-monotherapy (5FU) vs. 5FU + oxaliplatin (Oxal)) and (2) indicators of decisional conflict. Results: 190 of 221 patients enrolled were evaluable including 139 who were MMR-P. Pre-assay: 46% of patients chose Obs, 3% 5FU, 7% Oxal, 2% other and 41% were undecided. Post-assay: 75% chose Obs, 12% 5FU, 11% Oxal, 3% other (undecided was not a possible response). Post-assay 129 (96%) of 135 definitive Tx decisions (Obs, 5FU, or Oxal) were concordant between patients and physicians compared to 49 (66%) of 74 definitive decisions pre-assay. In the majority of cases, patients (85%) and physicians (69%) reported that the assay influenced their Tx decisions. Assay results increased physician confidence in Tx recommendations in 126 (84%) and provided additional clinically relevant information to physicians in 129 (86%) of cases. Patient decisional conflict was significantly lower after assay results (p<0.001). Conclusions: In this prospective study, quantitative recurrence risk information provided by the 12-gene assay influenced Tx decisions for a majority of patients and physicians, increased physician confidence, improved concordance in Tx choice between patients and physicians and decreased patient decisional conflict.