A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC.

PURPOSE: Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans. RESULTS: Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03806738.

Vegetable Gardening and Health Outcomes in Older Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cancer survivors experience accelerated functional decline that threatens independence and quality of life. Previous studies have suggested that vegetable gardening may improve diet, physical activity, and physical function in this vulnerable population, which comprises more than 5% of the US population. Objective: To assess whether diet, physical activity and functioning, and other outcomes improved in older cancer survivors assigned to a vegetable gardening intervention compared with a waitlist. Design, Setting, and Participants: From May 11, 2016, to May 2, 2022, a 2-arm, assessor-blinded, crossover-designed, intent-to-treat, randomized clinical trial was conducted at cancer survivors' homes across Alabama. Medicare-eligible survivors of cancers with 5-year survival of 60% or more were registry ascertained and screened for suboptimal vegetable and fruit consumption (<5 servings per day), physical activity (<150 moderate-to-vigorous minutes per week), and physical function (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] subscale score ≤90). Consented participants underwent baseline assessments, were randomly assigned to intervention or waitlisted arms, and were reassessed at 1-year follow-up. Intervention: One-year, home-based vegetable gardening intervention providing gardening supplies and mentorship by cooperative extension-certified master gardeners to plant and maintain spring, summer, and fall gardens. Waitlisted participants received the identical intervention after 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a composite index of improvements in self-reported vegetable and fruit consumption, physical activity, and physical function corroborated by plasma α-carotene levels, accelerometry, and physical performance assessments, respectively. Results: Of 381 enrolled participants (mean [SD] age, 69.8 [6.4] years; range, 50-95 years; 263 [69.0%] female), 194 were assigned to the gardening intervention and 187 were waitlisted (attrition rates, 7.2% and 7.0%, respectively). Intent-to-treat analyses did not detect a significant improvement in the composite index of vegetable and fruit intake, moderate-vigorous physical activity, and physical function (intervention arm vs waitlisted arm, 4.5% vs 3.1%; P = .53) or between-arm differences in vegetable and fruit intake (mean difference, 0.3 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.7] servings per day; P = .10). The intervention arm experienced a significant improvement in vegetable and fruit intake (mean increase, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.0-0.6] servings per day; P = .04). Significant improvements also were observed in the intervention arm vs waitlisted arm in physical performance (mean difference for 2-minute step test, 6.0 [95% CI, 0.8-11.2] steps; P = .03; for 30-second chair stand, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.1-1.5] repetitions; P = .02), perceived health (8.4 [95% CI, 3.0-13.9] points on a 100-point scale [higher scores indicate better health]; P = .003), and gut microbiome alpha diversity (84.1 [95% CI, 20.5-147.6] more observed species; P = .01). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly moderated effects (eg, odds of improvement in self-reported physical functioning were greater before vs during the pandemic: odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.12-4.22; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial including older cancer survivors, a vegetable gardening intervention did not significantly improve a composite index of diet, physical activity, and physical function; however, survivors assigned to the intervention had significantly increased vegetable and fruit consumption and, compared with waitlisted survivors, experienced significant improvements in perceived health and physical performance. Further study in broader populations and during pandemic-free periods is needed to determine definitive benefits. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02985411.

Assessing the association between quantity and quality of family caregiver participation in decision-making clinical encounters on patient activation in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

OBJECTIVE: Caregivers support individuals undergoing cancer treatment by assisting with activities, managing care, navigating healthcare systems, and communicating with care teams. We explored the quality and quantity of caregiver participation during recorded decision-making clinical appointments in women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This was a convergent parallel mixed methods study that utilized qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Caregiver participation quality was operationalized using a summative thematic content analysis to identify and sum caregiver actions performed during appointments. Performance of a greater number of actions was considered greater quality of participation. Caregiver participation quantity was measured by calculating the proportion of speaking time. Participation quality and quantity were compared to patient activation, assessed using the Patient Activation Measure 1-month post decision-making appointment. RESULTS: Fifty-three clinical encounters between patients with MBC, their caregivers, and oncologists were recorded. Identified caregiver actions included: General Support; Management of Treatment or Medication; Treatment History; Decision-Making; Insurance or Money; Pharmacy; Scheduling; Travel Concerns; General Cancer Understanding; Patient Specific Cancer Understanding; Caregiver-Initiated or Emphasis on Symptom Severity; and Caregiver Back-Up of Patient Symptom Description. Caregivers averaged 5 actions (SD 3): 48% of patient's caregivers had low quality (< 5 actions) and 52% had high quality (> 6 actions) participation. Regarding quantity, caregivers spoke on average for 4% of the encounter, with 60% of caregivers speaking less than 4% of the encounter (low quantity) and 40% of caregivers speaking more than 4% (high quantity). Greater quality and quantity of caregiver participation was associated with greater patient activation. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers perform a variety of actions during oncological decision-making visits aiding both patient and provider. Greater participation in terms of quantity and quality by the caregiver was associated with greater patient activism, indicating a need for better integration of the caregiver in clinical decision-making environments.

Engagement Among Diverse Patient Backgrounds in a Remote Symptom Monitoring Program.

PURPOSE: Previous randomized controlled trials have demonstrated benefit from remote symptom monitoring (RSM) with electronic patient-reported outcomes. However, the racial diversity of enrolled patients was low and did not reflect the real-world racial proportions for individuals with cancer. METHODS: This secondary, cross-sectional analysis evaluated engagement of patients with cancer in a RSM program. Patient-reported race was grouped as Black, Other, or White. Patient address was used to map patient residence to determine rurality using Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes and neighborhood disadvantage using Area Deprivation Index. Key outcomes included (1) being approached for RSM enrollment, (2) declining enrollment, (3) adherence with RSM via continuous completion of symptom surveys, and (4) withdrawal from RSM participation. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI were estimated from modified Poisson models with robust SEs. RESULTS: Between May 2021 and May 2023, 883 patients were approached to participate, of which 56 (6%) declined RSM. Of those who enrolled in RSM, a total of 27% of patients were Black or African American and 67% were White. In adjusted models, all patient population subgroups of interest had similar likelihoods of being approached for RSM participation; however, Black or African American patients were more than 3× more likely to decline participation than White participants (RR, 3.09 [95% CI, 1.73 to 5.53]). Patients living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to decline (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.02]), but less likely to adhere to surveys (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97]). All patient populations had a similar likelihood of withdrawing. CONCLUSION: Black patients and individuals living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods are at risk for lower engagement in RSM. Further work is needed to identify and overcome barriers to equitable participation.

Why location matters: associations between county-level characteristics and availability of National Cancer Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Institute sites.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with cancer seek care at community oncology sites; however, most clinical trials are available at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated sites. Although the NCI National Cancer Oncology Research Program (NCORP) was designed to address this problem, little is known about the county-level characteristics of NCORP site locations. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis determined the association between availability of NCORP or NCI sites and county-level characteristic theme percentile scores from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index themes. Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files were used to determine contiguous counties. We estimated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using modified Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between county-level characteristics and site availability within singular and singular and contiguous counties. RESULTS: Of 3141 included counties, 14% had an NCORP, 2% had an NCI, and 1% had both sites. Among singular counties, for a standard deviation increase in the racial and ethnic theme score, there was a 22% higher likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.36); for a standard deviation increase in the socioeconomic status theme score, there was a 24% lower likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.87). Associations were of smaller magnitude when including contiguous counties. NCI sites were located in more vulnerable counties. CONCLUSIONS: NCORP sites were more often in racially diverse counties and less often in socioeconomically vulnerable counties. Research is needed to understand how clinical trial representation will increase if NCORP sites strategically increase their locations in more vulnerable counties.

Trajectories of Health Care Contact Days for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Contact days (ie, the number of days with health care contact outside the home) measure how much of a person's life is consumed by health care, yet little is known about patterns of contact days for patients with NSCLC. Objective: To describe the trajectories of contact days in patients with stage IV NSCLC and how trajectories vary by receipt of cancer-directed treatment in routine practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, population-based decedent cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Participants included adults aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017) and died (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019); there was a maximum 2-year follow-up. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to August 16, 2023. Exposure: Systemic cancer-directed therapy (yes or no) and type of therapy (chemotherapy vs immunotherapy vs targeted therapy). Main Outcomes and Measures: Contact days (days with health care contact, outpatient or institution-based, outside the home) were identified through administrative data. The weekly percentage of contact days and fitted models with cubic splines were quantified to describe trajectories from diagnosis until death. Results: A total of 5785 decedents with stage IV NSCLC were included (median age, 70 [IQR 62-77] years; 3108 [53.7%] were male, and 1985 [34.3%] received systemic therapy). The median overall survival was 108 (IQR, 49-426) days, median contact days were 36 (IQR, 21-62), and the median percentage that were contact days was 33.3%. A median of 5 (IQR, 2-10) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Patients who did not receive systemic therapy had a median overall survival of 66 (IQR, 34-130) days and median contact days of 28 (IQR, 17-44), of which a median of 5 (IQR, 2-9) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Overall and for subgroups, normalized trajectories followed a U-shaped distribution: contact days were most frequent immediately after diagnosis and before death. Patients who received targeted therapy had the lowest contact day rate during the trough (10.6%; vs immunotherapy, 15.4%; vs chemotherapy, 17.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, decedents with stage IV NSCLC had a median survival in the order of 3.5 months and spent 1 in every 3 days alive interacting with the health care system outside the home. These results highlight the need to better support patients and care partners, benchmark appropriateness, and improve care delivery.

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Though financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. RESULTS: Of 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost. CONCLUSION: Cancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

Learning to Overcome Barriers to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation: Lessons From the Field.

#Implementation of #ePROs in real world settings, lessons learned.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care. METHODS: We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad." CONCLUSION: Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

Consuming Patients' Days: Time Spent on Ambulatory Appointments by People With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In qualitative work, patients report that seemingly short trips to clinic (eg, a supposed 10-minute blood draw) often turn into "all-day affairs." We sought to quantify the time patients with cancer spend attending ambulatory appointments. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients scheduled for oncology-related ambulatory care (eg, labs, imaging, procedures, infusions, and clinician visits) at an academic cancer center over 1 week. The primary exposure was the ambulatory service type(s) (eg, clinician visit only, labs and infusion, etc.). We used Real-Time Location System badge data to calculate clinic times and estimated round-trip travel times and parking times. We calculated and summarized clinic and total (clinic + travel + parking) times for ambulatory service types. RESULTS: We included 435 patients. Across all service day type(s), the median (IQR) clinic time was 119 (78-202) minutes. The estimated median (IQR) round-trip driving distance and travel time was 34 (17-49) miles and 50 (36-68) minutes. The median (IQR) parking time was 14 (12-15) minutes. Overall, the median (IQR) total time was 197 (143-287) minutes. The median total times for specific service type(s) included: 99 minutes for lab-only, 144 minutes for clinician visit only, and 278 minutes for labs, clinician visit, and infusion. CONCLUSION: Patients often spent several hours pursuing ambulatory cancer care on a given day. Accounting for opportunity time costs and the coordination of activities around ambulatory care, these results highlight the substantial time burdens of cancer care, and support the notion that many days with ambulatory health care contact may represent "lost days."

Simulating the population impact of interventions to reduce racial gaps in breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Inequities in guideline-concordant treatment receipt contribute to worse survival in Black patients with breast cancer. Inequity-reduction interventions (eg, navigation, bias training, tracking dashboards) can close such treatment gaps. We simulated the population-level impact of statewide implementation of inequity-reduction interventions on racial breast cancer inequities in North Carolina. METHODS: Using registry-linked multipayer claims data, we calculated inequities between Black and White patients receiving endocrine therapy (n = 12 033) and chemotherapy (n = 1819). We then built cohort-stratified (endocrine therapy and chemotherapy) and race-stratified Markov models to simulate the potential increase in the proportion of patients receiving endocrine therapy or chemotherapy and subsequent improvements in breast cancer outcomes if inequity-reducing intervention were implemented statewide. We report uncertainty bounds representing 95% of simulation results. RESULTS: In total, 75.6% and 72.1% of Black patients received endocrine therapy and chemotherapy, respectively, over the 2006-2015 and 2004-2015 periods (vs 79.3% and 78.9% of White patients, respectively). Inequity-reduction interventions could increase endocrine therapy and chemotherapy receipt among Black patients to 89.9% (85.3%, 94.6%) and 85.7% (80.7%, 90.9%). Such interventions could also decrease 5-year and 10-year breast cancer mortality gaps from 3.4 to 3.2 (3.0, 3.3) and from 6.7 to 6.1 (5.9, 6.4) percentage points in the endocrine therapy cohorts and from 8.6 to 8.1 (7.7, 8.4) and from 8.2 to 7.8 (7.3, 8.1) percentage points in the chemotherapy cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Inequity-focused interventions could improve cancer outcomes for Black patients, but they would not fully close the racial breast cancer mortality gap. Addressing other inequities along the cancer continuum (eg, screening, pre- and postdiagnosis risk factors) is required to achieve full equity in breast cancer outcomes.

Physicians' Hierarchy of Tumor Biomarkers for Optimizing Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Tumor biomarkers are regularly used to guide breast cancer treatment and clinical trial enrollment. However, there remains a lack of knowledge regarding physicians' perspectives towards biomarkers and their role in treatment optimization, where treatment intensity is reduced to minimize toxicity. METHODS: Thirty-nine academic and community oncologists participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews, providing perspectives on optimization approaches to chemotherapy treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 2 independent coders utilizing a constant comparative method in NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. A framework outlining physicians' conception of biomarkers, and their comfortability with their use in treatment optimization, was developed. RESULTS: In the hierarchal model of biomarkers, level 1 is comprised of standard-of-care (SoC) biomarkers, defined by a strong level of evidence, alignment with national guidelines, and widespread utilization. Level 2 includes SoC biomarkers used in alternative contexts, in which physicians expressed confidence, yet less certainty, due to a lack of data in certain subgroups. Level 3, or experimental, biomarkers created the most diverse concerns related to quality and quantity of evidence, with several additional modulators. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that physicians conceptualize the use of biomarkers for treatment optimization in successive levels. This hierarchy can be used to guide trialists in the development of novel biomarkers and design of future trials.

Measures of functional status in older patients treated with palbociclib for advanced breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data are available on the effects of treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in older patients because this population has limited enrollment in clinical trials. Data generated from the prospective, noninterventional POLARIS study of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC may help bridge the gap in our understanding of the tolerability and outcomes in this vulnerable population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated measures of geriatric impairments and activities of daily living in patients with ABC aged ≥70 years in POLARIS to evaluate the change within six months of palbociclib initiation. Geriatric impairments and activities of daily living (functional) status were assessed using the Geriatric 8 (G8) and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) screening tools. The G8, ADL, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) scores were assessed at baseline and month six through end of treatment with palbociclib. ECOG PS scores were also stratified by G8 and ADL score severity subgroups (G8: ≤14 = impaired subgroup; >14 = not at all impaired subgroup; ADL: <18 = dependent subgroup, 18 = independent subgroup). RESULTS: At data cutoff in November 2020, of 1282 POLARIS patients of all ages, 287 (22.4%) were ≥ 70 years old and completed ≥6 months of palbociclib therapy. At baseline, 117 (45%; n = 260) of these patients had an ECOG PS score of 0, 143 (55%; n = 260) had ECOG PS score > 0, 248 (86%) had G8 scores (mean [SD] 13.6 [2.14]), and 256 (89%) had ADL scores (17.7 [1.03]) among the available 287 patients. At six months, 102 (40%; n = 255) had an ECOG PS score of 0, 153 (60%; n = 255) had ECOG PS score > 0, 198 (69%) had G8 scores (13.6 [1.99]), and 211 (74%) had ADL scores (17.6 [1.22]) among the 287 available patients. There was no mean change (standard deviation) from baseline to 6 months in mean ECOG PS scores (0.0 [0.61], P = 0.24), G8 scores (0.0 [2.17], P = 0.89), or ADL scores (0.0 [1.00], P = 0.62). DISCUSSION: In this subgroup analysis of older patients with ABC from POLARIS, functional status and impairment outcomes were preserved in older patients receiving palbociclib. G8, ADL, and ECOG PS scores were generally maintained during the first six months of palbociclib therapy. CLINICALTRIALS: govidentification number. NCT03280303.

Cancer-Related Financial Hardship Screening as Part of Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: Data on financial hardship, an "adverse event" in individuals with cancer, are needed to inform policy and supportive care interventions and reduce adverse economic outcomes. METHODS: Lay navigator-led financial hardship screening was piloted among University of Alabama at Birmingham oncology patients initiating treatment in October 2020. Financial hardship screening, including reported financial distress and difficulty, was added to a standard-of-care treatment planning survey. Screening feasibility and completion and proportions of reported financial distress and difficulty were calculated overall and by patient race and rurality. The risk of financial distress by patient sociodemographics was estimated. RESULTS: Patients who completed a treatment planning survey (N=2741) were 18% Black, Indigenous, or persons of color (BIPOC) and 16% rural dwelling. The majority of patients completed financial hardship screening (90%), surpassing the target feasibility completion rate of 75%. The screening revealed 34% of patients were experiencing financial distress, including 49% of BIPOC and 30% of White patients. Adjusted models revealed BIPOC patients had a 48% higher risk of financial distress compared with those who were White (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI, 1.31-1.66). Large differences in reported financial difficulties were seen comparing patients who were BIPOC and White (utilities: 33% vs. 10%, upfront medical payments: 44% vs. 23%, transportation: 28% vs. 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The collection of patient-reported financial hardship data via routine clinical care was feasible and identified racial inequities at treatment initiation. Efforts to collect patient economic data should support the design, implementation, and evaluation of patient-centered interventions to improve equity and reduce the impact of financial hardship.

"Clinical trials are space travel": Factors of psychological response to recurrence among oncologists enrolling patients in treatment optimization trials.

BACKGROUND: Cancer recurrence after treatment is a concern for patients and oncologists alike. The movement towards treatment optimization, with trials testing less than the current standard of care (SoC), complicates this experience. Our objective was to assess oncologists' psychological response to patient recurrence on optimization-focused trials and identify factors that influence those experiences. METHODS: Clinical oncologists participated in a semi-structured interview regarding patient enrollment in treatment optimization trials. We identified factors that influence the degree of psychological response that the oncologist may feel after patient recurrence. Residual agreement analysis was used to identify whether differences in reported psychological response was associated with alternative emphases on identified factors. RESULTS: Thirty-six oncologists identified 20 factors spanning five major themes that affected their psychological response to patient recurrence. All oncologists expressed willingness to enroll patients in treatment optimization clinical trials; however, half indicated that they were more likely to experience a negative psychological response after a treatment optimization trial than after a traditional intensification trial, and a quarter reported that patient recurrence on an optimization trial would impact their recommendations for future trial enrollment. Oncologists who reported more negative psychological responses to patient recurrence after participation in an optimization trial were more likely to emphasize introspective factors, while those who reported no difference in response emphasized patient- and process-focused factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although most oncologists recognize the importance of treatment optimization trials, a significant proportion indicated a greater potential for psychological distress following patient recurrence in such trials and offered insight into how trial design and the process of patient enrollment can be improved to minimize those negative psychological responses.

Enhancing Efficiency and Reach Using Facebook to Recruit Breast Cancer Survivors for a Telephone-Based Supportive Care Randomized Trial During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Evidence supporting social media-based recruitment of cancer survivors is limited. This paper describes how we used Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic to augment our recruitment of breast cancer survivors for our two-site telephone-based randomized clinical trial (RCT) at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. METHODS: Originally a two-site RCT of a telephone-delivered breast cancer survivorship intervention, we extended our clinic-based recruitment to Facebook. Participant characteristics, geographic reach, and baseline outcomes were compared across recruitment sources (ie, two clinics and Facebook) using descriptive statistics and effect sizes. RESULTS: Enrollment rates (20%-29%) were comparable across recruitment sources. The 21-month Facebook marketing campaign accounted for 59% (n = 179/303) of our total sample and had the greatest geographic reach, recruiting women from 24 states. The Facebook campaign reached a total of 51,787 unique individuals and cost $88.44 in US dollars (USD) per enrolled participant. Clinic samples had a greater proportion of women who were widowed (8% v 1%; P = .03) and Facebook had a higher proportion of women with a household income over $40,000 USD (83% v 71%; P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences between Facebook and the two clinics on baseline survey scores. CONCLUSION: Augmenting traditional recruitment with Facebook increased our RCT's geographic and sociodemographic reach and supported meeting recruitment goals in a timely way. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer survivorship researchers should consider using social media as a recruitment strategy while weighing the advantages and potential biases introduced through such strategies.

Health Care Contact Days Experienced by Decedents With Advanced GI Cancer.

PURPOSE: Frequent visits to health care facilities can be time intensive and all-consuming for people with cancer. We measured health care contact days (days with healthcare contact outside the home) among decedents with advanced GI cancer and examined sources of contact days, their associations with demographic and clinical factors, and their temporal patterns over the course of illness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a tumor registry and electronic medical record data for decedents with stage IV GI cancer between 2011 and 2019 in a large health care network in MN. We determined contact days from diagnosis to death using chart review. Using multivariable beta regression adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics offset by survival, we calculated adjusted estimates of contact days and determined patient-level factors associated with percentage of contact days. RESULTS: We identified 809 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 65 [56-73] years). The median (IQR) overall survival was 175 (56-459) days. Patients spent a median (IQR) of 25.8% (17.4%-39.1%) of these as contact days. Of these days, 83.6% were spent on outpatient visits. In the multivariable analysis, older age, Black race, and never receiving systemic cancer-directed treatment were associated with a higher percentage of contact days. The percentage of contact days was highest in the first month after diagnosis (39.6%) and before death (32.2%), with a more moderate middle phase (U-shaped curve). CONCLUSION: Decedents with advanced GI cancer spend 1 in 4 days alive with health care contact, despite a median survival of under 6 months. This is even higher immediately postdiagnosis and near death. These findings highlight the need to understand sources of variation, benchmark appropriate care, and deliver more efficient care for this vulnerable population with limited time.