An innovative educational program for addressing health disparities in translational cancer research.

North Carolina Central University (NCCU) and Duke Cancer Institute implemented an NCI-funded Translational Cancer Disparities Research Partnership to enhance translational cancer research, increase the pool of underrepresented racial and ethnic group (UREG) researchers in the translational and clinical research workforce, and equip UREG trainees with skills to increase diversity in clinical trials. The Cancer Research Education Program (C-REP) provided training for UREG graduate students and postdoctoral fellows at Duke and NCCU. An innovative component of C-REP is the Translational Immersion Experience (TIE), which enabled Scholars to gain knowledge across eight domains of clinical and translational research (clinical trials operations, data monitoring, regulatory affairs, UREG accrual, biobanking, community engagement, community outreach, and high-throughput drug screening). Program-specific evaluative metrics were created for three broad domains (clinical operations, basic science/lab research, and population-based science) and eight TIE domains. Two cohorts (n = 13) completed pre- and post-surveys to determine program impact and identify recommendations for program improvement. Scholars reported statistically significant gains in knowledge across three broad domains of biomedical research and seven distinct areas within TIE. Training in translational research incorporating immersions in clinical trials operation, biobanking, drug development, and community engagement adds value to career development of UREG researchers.

Perspectives on Inflammatory Breast Cancer (IBC) Research, Clinical Management and Community Engagement from the Duke IBC Consortium.

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an understudied and aggressive form of breast cancer with a poor prognosis, accounting for 2-6% of new breast cancer diagnoses but 10% of all breast cancer-related deaths in the United States. Currently there are no therapeutic regimens developed specifically for IBC, and it is critical to recognize that all aspects of treating IBC - including staging, diagnosis, and therapy - are vastly different than other breast cancers. In December 2014, under the umbrella of an interdisciplinary initiative supported by the Duke School of Medicine, researchers, clinicians, research administrators, and patient advocates formed the Duke Consortium for IBC to address the needs of patients in North Carolina (an ethnically and economically diverse state with 100 counties) and across the Southeastern United States. The primary goal of this group is to translate research into action and improve both awareness and patient care through collaborations with local, national and international IBC programs. The consortium held its inaugural meeting on Feb 28, 2018, which also marked Rare Disease Day and convened national research experts, clinicians, patients, advocates, government representatives, foundation leaders, staff, and trainees. The meeting focused on new developments and challenges in the clinical management of IBC, research challenges and opportunities, and an interactive session to garner input from patients, advocates, and community partners that would inform a strategic plan toward continuing improvements in IBC patient care, research, and education.

A 2-Year Holistic Health and Stress Intervention: Results of an RCT in Clergy.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to determine the effect of a 2-year, multicomponent health intervention (Spirited Life) targeting metabolic syndrome and stress simultaneously. DESIGN: An RCT using a three-cohort multiple baseline design was conducted in 2010-2014. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were United Methodist clergy in North Carolina, U.S., in 2010, invited based on occupational status. Of invited 1,745 clergy, 1,114 consented, provided baseline data, and were randomly assigned to immediate intervention (n=395), 1-year waitlist (n=283), or 2-year waitlist (n=436) cohorts for a 48-month trial duration. INTERVENTION: The 2-year intervention consisted of personal goal setting and encouragement to engage in monthly health coaching, an online weight loss intervention, a small grant, and three workshops delivering stress management and theological content supporting healthy behaviors. Participants were not blinded to intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trial outcomes were metabolic syndrome (primary) and self-reported stress and depressive symptoms (secondary). Intervention effects were estimated in 2016 in an intention-to-treat framework using generalized estimating equations with adjustment for baseline level of the outcome and follow-up time points. Log-link Poisson generalized estimating equations with robust SEs was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) for binary outcomes; mean differences were used for continuous/score outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 50.9% and depression was 11.4%. The 12-month intervention effect showed a benefit for metabolic syndrome (PR=0.86, 95% CI=0.79, 0.94, p<0.001). This benefit was sustained at 24 months of intervention (PR=0.88; 95% CI=0.78, 1.00, p=0.04). There was no significant effect on depression or stress scores. CONCLUSIONS: The Spirited Life intervention improved metabolic syndrome prevalence in a population of U.S. Christian clergy and sustained improvements during 24 months of intervention. These findings offer support for long-duration behavior change interventions and population-level interventions that allow participants to set their own health goals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01564719.

A multisite, community oncology-based randomized trial of a brief educational intervention to increase communication regarding complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widespread, yet there is relatively little discussion regarding its use between oncology patients and their health care practitioners. METHODS: This multisite randomized trial examined the efficacy of an educational intervention designed to encourage oncology nurses to discuss CAM use with their patients. A total of 175 nurses completed questionnaires about discussing CAM use with patients at baseline and 2 months after the intervention. Patients at baseline (N = 699) and different patients at follow-up (N = 650) completed questionnaires regarding CAM. RESULTS: At the 2-month follow-up, nurses in the intervention reported they were more likely to ask about CAM use than those in the control group (odds ratio, 4.2; P = .005). However, no significant effect was found for the percentage of patients who indicated that they were asked about CAM use (odds ratio, 2.1; P > .10). Approximately 40% of patients reported using CAM after their cancer diagnosis, yet the majority of nurses estimated that < 25% of their patients were using CAM. CONCLUSIONS: CAM use in community-based oncology patients is common and is underestimated by oncology nurses. The brief, low-intensity intervention presented herein was found to be sufficiently powerful to change nurses' perceptions of their behavior but may not have been intensive enough to yield changes that were evident to patients.