Breast cancer survivor's perspectives on the role different providers play in follow-up care.

IMPORTANCE: Significant variation in the number and types of oncologists that provide breast cancer follow-up exists. However, there is limited understanding regarding breast cancer survivors' preferences for who provides their follow-up. Our objective was to explore breast cancer survivors' perspectives on the goals of breast cancer follow-up, the preferred role for primary care providers, and the perceived roles of different types of oncologists during follow-up. METHODS: A convenience sample of stage 0-III breast cancer survivors was identified and in-depth one-on-one interviews conducted. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Survivors cited a strong preference for oncology-based follow-up within the first 5 years after diagnosis, driven by their need for reassurance that cancer had not recurred. Survivors also thought that their primary care provider needed to be involved. Survivors assumed that oncology follow-up was directed by a standard protocol that included streamlining the follow-up team. Survivors recognized that patients with more complex cancers or challenging treatment courses may require more intensive follow-up and deviate from the standard protocol. Most survivors were comfortable deferring decisions regarding who participated in follow-up to the oncology team. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients think a streamlined approach to oncology-based breast cancer follow-up already occurs, driven by a standard protocol. The use of a standard protocol to provide guidance for which types of oncology providers should participate in breast cancer follow-up will streamline care and represents a significant opportunity to reduce unnecessary variation. This approach is especially critical given patients' strong preferences for oncology-based follow-up.

Employment outcomes among survivors of common cancers: the Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns (SOAPP) study.

INTRODUCTION: Risk factors for employment difficulties after cancer diagnosis are incompletely understood, and interventions to improve post-cancer employment remain few. New targets for intervention are needed. METHODS: We assessed a cohort of 530 nonmetastatic cancer patients (aged ≤ 65 years, >6 months from diagnosis, off chemo- or radiotherapy) from the observational multi-site Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns study. Participants reported employment change, current employment, and symptoms. Groups were based on employment at survey (working full- or part-time versus not working) and whether there had been a change due to illness (yes versus no). The predictive power of symptom interference with work was evaluated for employment group (working stably versus no longer working). Race/ethnicity, gender, cancer type, therapy, and time since diagnosis were also assessed. Association between employment group and specific symptoms was examined. RESULTS: The cohort was largely non-Hispanic white (76 %), female (85 %), and diagnosed with breast cancer (75 %); 24 % reported a change in employment. On multivariable analysis, participants with at least moderate symptom interference were more likely to report no longer working than their less effected counterparts (odds ratio (OR) = 8.0, 95 % CI, 4.2-15.4), as were minority participants compared with their non-Hispanic white counterparts (OR = 3.2, 95 % CI, 1.8-5.6). Results from the multiple regression model indicated the combination of fatigue (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI, 1.1-4.7), distress (OR = 3.9, 95 % CI, 1.7-9.0), and dry mouth (OR = 2.6, 95 % CI, 1.1-6.2) together with race/ethnicity and time since diagnosis adequately accounted for employment group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the hypothesis that residual symptom burden is related to post-cancer employment: Residual symptoms may be targets for intervention to improve work outcomes among cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This analysis examines whether increased symptom burden is associated with a change to not working following a cancer diagnosis. We also examined individual symptoms to assess which symptoms were most strongly associated with not working after a cancer diagnosis. Our hope is that we will be able to use this information to both screen survivors post-active treatment as well as target high-risk symptoms for further and more aggressive intervention, in an attempt to improve post-cancer work outcomes.

Capecitabine and oxaliplatin in combination as first- or second-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a Wisconsin Oncology Network trial.

PURPOSE: Several cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens are active against metastatic breast cancer; however, benefits are modest and overall prognosis remains limited. For anthracycline and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer, there remains a relative paucity of therapies with significant activity. This Phase II study evaluated the combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) among patients with metastatic breast cancer being treated in the first- or second-line setting. METHODS: Patients received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15, and capecitabine 1,500 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-7 and 15-21 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were treated until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary objective was to estimate the objective response rate by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria with tumor assessments every 8 weeks. RESULTS: Ten patients were treated of which 3 had received prior neurotoxic therapy in the metastatic setting. There were no confirmed complete responses, 5 patients had partial response, 4 patients had stable disease for at least 24 weeks, and one patient was unevaluable. Median time to progression (TTP) was 10.4 months (95% lower confidence bound [LCB]: 5.75 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.2 months (95% LCB: 6.14 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 19 months (95% LCB: 12.8 months). Multiple patients experienced pain syndromes and unusual neuropathies. Other common toxicities included fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: XELOX is a promising regimen for anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer although careful patient selection is indicated and alternate dosing schedules should be explored to minimize neurologic morbidity.