Abstract OT1-15-01: SWOG 1904: Cluster-randomized controlled trial of patient and provider decision support to increase chemoprevention informed choice among women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (MiCHOICE)

Background: Despite evidence of substantial breast cancer risk reduction, few high-risk women adopt chemopreventive medications such as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Women with benign breast disease, such as atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and derive a greater benefit from antiestrogens compared to other high-risk women. Reasons for low uptake of chemoprevention include insufficient patient and clinician knowledge about antiestrogens, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and concerns about side effects. To address these barriers, we have developed patient and provider web-based decision support tools to improve informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. Study design: We are conducting a cluster-randomized controlled trial of clinical decision support to improve chemoprevention informed choice among women with AH or LCIS and their treating providers. Twenty-six U.S. sites through the SWOG Cancer Research Network were randomly assigned 1:1 to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the patient-centered decision aid (RealRisks) and provider decision support tool (BNAV). A total of 415 patients and 200 healthcare providers will be recruited from these sites. RealRisks consists of interactive modules to calculate personalized breast cancer risk and elicit preferences on chemoprevention. The modules are available in English and Spanish. BNAV is comprised of self-directed case-based learning modules on breast cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention. Patients complete questionnaires at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Providers complete surveys at baseline and after their enrolled patient’s 6-month clinical encounter. The primary endpoint is chemoprevention informed choice at 6 months, using a measure combining knowledge, attitude, and intention scales. Secondary endpoints include perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge/intention, decision conflict/regret, shared decision-making, and chemoprevention uptake. For patients who begin chemoprevention, adherence and reasons for discontinuation are assessed annually for up to 5 years. Barriers and facilitators to implementing RealRisks and BNAV into clinic workflow will be assessed by conducting patient and provider interviews at baseline and mid-implementation. Eligibility criteria: Eligible patients include women, age 35-74 years, with AH or LCIS, no history of breast cancer, no prior use of SERMs or AIs, no bilateral mastectomies, English or Spanish-speaking, and access to the internet. Eligible providers include breast surgeons, medical oncologists, primary care providers, and physician extenders who see patients with AH or LCIS. Statistical methods: We have 90% power to detect a 15% increase in the frequency of chemoprevention informed choice with a 1-sided 0.025 level test, assuming an intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.02 to account for clustering, roughly equal accrual at each site, 10% loss to follow-up, and ≤10% event rate in the control arm. Current/target accrual: The trial was activated on 9/1/2020. As of 7/7/2022, all 26 sites have been randomized, 157/200 providers and 184/415 patients have been enrolled. Discussion: Our hybrid effectiveness/implementation study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level intervention in promoting informed decision-making about breast cancer chemoprevention. Study results will provide valuable insights on how the decision support tools are integrated in diverse clinical settings.

Citation Format: Katherine D. Crew, Garnet Anderson, Kathryn Arnold, Andrew Stieb, Jacquelyn N. Amenta, Cynthia Law, Ana Sandoval-Leon, Sarah Colonna, Tari King, Debra Mangino, Sandhya Pruthi, Maria Grosse Perdekamp, Christa Braun-Inglis, Stacy Krisher, Lisa Yee, Danielle Bertoni, Samantha Seaward, Kari B. Wisinski, Justin Floyd, Corrine Zarwan, Tarah J. Ballinger, Lindi VanderWalde, Masey M. Ross, Preston Steen, Shelly Lo, Alison Conlin, Kathleen Yost, John Ellerton, Erin Lin, Holly J. Pederson, Sagar Sardesai, Cheryl Jernigan, Dawn Hershman, Marian L. Neuhouser, Banu K. Arun, Rita Kukafka. SWOG 1904: Cluster-randomized controlled trial of patient and provider decision support to increase chemoprevention informed choice among women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (MiCHOICE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-15-01.

18F-FDG PET/CT Prediction of Treatment Outcomes in Human Papillomavirus-Positive, Locally Advanced Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Receiving Deintensified Therapy: Results from NRG-HN002

The purpose of this study was to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of a 12- to 14-wk posttreatment PET/CT for 2-y progression-free survival (PFS) and locoregional control (LRC) in patients with p16-positive locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal cancer (LA-OPC). Study was a secondary endpoint in NRG-HN002, a noncomparative phase II trial in p16-positive LA-OPC, stage T1-T2, N1-N2b or T3, N0-N2b, and ≤10 pack-year smoking. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to reduced-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with or without cisplatin. Methods: PET/CT scans were reviewed centrally. Tumor response evaluations for the primary site, right neck, and left neck were performed using a 5-point ordinal scale (Hopkins criteria). Overall scores were then assigned as negative, positive, or indeterminate. Patients with a negative score for all 3 evaluation sites were given an overall score of negative. The hypotheses were NPV for PFS and LRC at 2-y posttreatment ≤ 90% versus >90% (1-sided P value, 0.10). Results: A total of 316 patients were enrolled, of whom 306 were randomized and eligible. Of these, 131 (42.8%) patients consented to a posttherapy PET/CT, and 117 (89.3%) patients were eligible for PET/CT analysis. The median time from the end of treatment to PET/CT scan was 94 d (range, 52-139 d). Estimated 2-y PFS and LRC rates in the analysis subgroup were 91.3% (95% CI, 84.6, 95.8%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 87.6, 97.5%), respectively. Posttreatment scans were negative for residual tumor for 115 patients (98.3%) and positive for 2 patients (1.7%). NPV for 2-y PFS was 92.0% (90% lower confidence bound [LCB] 87.7%; P = 0.30) and for LRC was 94.5% (90% LCB 90.6%; P = 0.07). Conclusion: In the context of deintensification with reduced-dose radiation, the NPV of a 12- to 14-wk posttherapy PET/CT for 2-y LRC is estimated to be >90%, similar to that reported for patients receiving standard chemoradiation. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the NPV is >90% for PFS.

Trastuzumab with trimodality treatment for oesophageal adenocarcinoma with HER2 overexpression (NRG Oncology/RTOG 1010): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody against HER2 (also known as ERBB2). The primary objective of the NRG Oncology/RTOG-1010 trial was to establish whether trastuzumab improves disease-free survival when combined with trimodality treatment (paclitaxel plus carboplatin and radiotherapy, followed by surgery) for patients with untreated HER2-overexpressing oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

NRG Oncology/RTOG-1010 was an open label, randomised, phase 3 trial for which patients were accrued from 111 NRG-affiliated institutions in the USA. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed pathologically confirmed oesophageal adenocarcinoma, American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition T1N1-2 or T2-3N0-2 stage disease, and a Zubrod performance status of 0-2. Patients were stratified by adenopathy (no vs yes [coeliac absent] vs yes [coeliac present ≤2 cm]) and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly intravenous paclitaxel (50 mg/m² intravenously over 1 h) and carboplatin (area under the curve 2, intravenously over 30-60 min) for 6 weeks with radiotherapy 50·4 Gy in 28 fractions (chemoradiotherapy) followed by surgery, with or without intravenous trastuzumab (4 mg/kg in week one, 2 mg/kg per week for 5 weeks during chemoradiotherapy, 6 mg/kg once presurgery, and 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 13 treatments starting 21-56 days after surgery). The primary endpoint, disease-free survival, was defined as the time from randomisation to death or first of locoregional disease persistence or recurrence, distant metastases, or second primary malignancy. Analyses were done by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01196390; it is now closed and in follow-up.

FINDINGS

606 patients were entered for HER2 assessment from Dec 30, 2010 to Nov 10, 2015, and 203 eligible patients who were HER2-positive were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab (n=102) or chemoradiotherapy alone (n=101). Median duration of follow-up was 2·8 years (IQR 1·4-5·7). Median disease-free survival was 19·6 months (95% CI 13·5-26·2) with chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab compared with 14·2 months (10·5-23·0) for chemoradiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·99 [95% CI 0·71-1·39], log-rank p=0·97). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 41 (43%) of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group versus 52 (54%) of 96 in the chemoradiotherapy group and grade 4 events occurred in 20 (21%) versus 21 (22%). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events for both groups were haematological (53 [56%] of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group vs 55 [57%] of 96 patients in the chemotherapy group) or gastrointestinal disorders (28 [29%] vs 20 [21 %]). 34 (36%) of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group and 27 (28%) of 96 patients in the chemoradiotherapy only group had treatment-related serious adverse events. There were eight treatment-related deaths: five (5%) of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group (bronchopleural fistula, oesophageal anastomotic leak, lung infection, sudden death, and death not otherwise specified), and three (3%) of 96 in the chemoradiotherapy group (two multiorgan failure and one sepsis).

INTERPRETATION

The addition of trastuzumab to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for HER2-overexpressing oesophageal cancer was not effective. Trastuzumab did not lead to increased toxicities, suggesting that future studies combining it with or using other agents targeting HER2 in oesophageal cancer are warranted.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute and Genentech.

Attitudes and Perceptions of Multidisciplinary Cancer Care Clinicians Toward Telehealth and Secure Messages

Importance

Telehealth use including secure messages has rapidly expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic, including for multidisciplinary aspects of cancer care. Recent reports described rapid uptake and various benefits for patients and clinicians, suggesting that telehealth may be in standard use after the pandemic.

Objective

To examine attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians toward telehealth and secure messages.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional specialty-specific survey (ie, some questions appear only for relevant specialties) among multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians, collected from April 29, 2020, to June 5, 2020. Participants were all 285 clinicians in the fields of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, survivorship, and oncology navigation from all 21 community cancer centers of Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinician satisfaction, perceived benefits and challenges of telehealth, perceived quality of telehealth and secure messaging, preferred visit and communication types for different clinical activities, and preferences regarding postpandemic telehealth use.

Results

A total of 202 clinicians (71%) responded (104 of 128 medical oncologists, 34 of 37 radiation oncologists, 16 of 62 breast surgeons, 18 of 28 navigators, and 30 of 30 survivorship experts; 57% (116 of 202) were women; 73% [147 of 202] between ages 36-55 years). Seventy-six percent (n = 154) were satisfied with telehealth without statistically significant variations based on clinician characteristics. In-person visits were thought to promote a strong patient-clinician connection by 99% (n = 137) of respondents compared with 77% (n = 106) for video visits, 43% (n = 59) for telephone, and 14% (n = 19) for secure messages. The most commonly cited benefits of telehealth to clinicians included reduced commute (79%; n = 160), working from home (74%; n = 149), and staying on time (65%; n = 132); the most commonly cited negative factors included internet connection (84%; n = 170) or equipment problems (72%; n = 146), or physical examination needed (64%; n = 131). Most respondents (59%; n = 120) thought that video is adequate to manage the greater part of patient care in general; and most deemed various telehealth modalities suitable for any of the queried types of patient-clinician activities. For some specific activities, less than half of respondents thought that only an in-person visit is acceptable (eg, 49%; n = 66 for end-of-life discussion, 35%; n = 58 for new diagnosis). Most clinicians (82%; n = 166) preferred to maintain or increase use of telehealth after the pandemic.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians in the COVID-19 era, telehealth was well received and often preferred by most cancer care clinicians, who deemed it appropriate to manage most aspects of cancer care. As telehealth use becomes routine in some cancer care settings, video and telephone visits and use of asynchronous secure messaging with patients in cancer care has clear potential to extend beyond the pandemic period.

Abstract S06-03: Cancer care telehealth utilization rates and provider attitudes in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic: The Kaiser Permanente Northern California experience

Background: In response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the multidisciplinary care of cancer patients has rapidly evolved. This study aims to determine utilization trends of in-person, telephone, and video visits, before and after the California shelter-in-place (SIP) orders on 3/19/20, and assess perspectives of cancer care providers on telehealth.

Methods: This study was conducted in 22 medical centers of a large integrated health care system. Utilization of different visit types in medical oncology (excluding infusion visits) was collected between 12/1/2019–5/24/2020, for a total of 104,588 visits. Chi-square with Yates correction was used for p-values. Voluntary, anonymous electronic surveys were sent to 276 cancer care providers measuring attitudes and experiences with telehealth. Overall, 68.8% responded: 101/128 medical oncologists (MedOnc), 34/37 radiation oncologists (RadOnc), 16/62 breast surgeons (Brst Surg), 18/28 breast oncology nurse navigators (OncNav), and 21/21 cancer survivorship advanced practitioners (SurvOnc).

Results: Comparing visit types prior to and after SIP, in-person visits went from 55.3% to 3.3%, telephone visits went from 44.2% to 79%, and video visits went from 0.5% to 17.8% (p<.0001). Between 12/2019 and 05/2020, video visits increased from 0.42% to 31.3%. Telephone visits increased from 39.3 to a peak of 86.6% in 04/2020 and then decreased to 63.7%. In-person visits dropped from 60.3% to 2.3% in 04/2020 and then increased to 5.0% (p<.0001). Satisfaction with telehealth was high: 87.1% of MedOnc, 91.2% of RadOnc, 68.6% of BrstSurg, 72.2% of OncNav, and 90.4% SurvOnc providers were very or somewhat satisfied. Most providers preferred to increase or maintain telehealth utilization after the pandemic: 84% of MedOnc, 85% of RadOnc, 81% of BrstSurg, 51% of OncNav, and 90% of SurvOnc. Among most providers, highest cited benefits of telehealth included work from home, reduced commute, staying on time, flexible hours, and shorter visits. Commonly cited challenges included connection/equipment problems, need for physical exam, difficulty evaluating performance status, and in-person visit required anyway. Of MedOnc, 11.8% responded that a patient suffered an adverse effect that could have been prevented with in-person visit. In-person visits were thought to promote the strongest provider-patient connection, followed by video, telephone visits, and emails. MedOnc providers deemed in-person visits were needed for end-of-life discussion (49%), discussing a new diagnosis (47.1%), palliative care discussion (34.3%), and clinical trial enrollment (34.3%). Activities for which email or phone visits were most accepted included check-in pretreatment, survivorship planning/follow-up, and patient navigation.

Conclusion: Overall, telehealth utilization has rapidly increased and is well accepted by various cancer care providers. Addressing technical issues and tailoring visit type to specific activities may further promote telehealth adoption and satisfaction.

Citation Format: Elad Neeman, Tatjana Kolevska, Mary Reed, Tilak Sundaresan, Amit Arora, Yan Li, Samantha Seaward, Gillian Kuehner, Sharon Likely, Julia Trossman, Christine Weldon, Raymond Liu. Cancer care telehealth utilization rates and provider attitudes in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic: The Kaiser Permanente Northern California experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2020 Jul 20-22. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(18_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.

Responding to people with a learning disability who offend

AIM

This article reports on a small survey conducted in one NHS trust to establish the number of people with a learning disability known by staff to have committed, or be alleged to have committed, an offence.

METHOD

A sample of 35 members of staff who were likely to be in contact with this client group were sent questionnaires. Thirty responses were received, giving a response rate of 86 per cent.

RESULTS

A total of four nurses and two clinical psychologists were in contact with 31 individuals known or alleged to have committed an offence. These offences were mainly sexual and some were violent. Several individuals had committed a number of separate offences. Respondents felt that the needs of these individuals were not adequately met by current service provision.

CONCLUSION

A planned inter-agency response is required to deal with people with learning disabilities who carry out criminal offences, rather than the current system which is vague in terms of allocating responsibility for action. The nurse's role in providing sexual health education for those with learning disabilities also needs to be considered in the light of the survey results.