The application of positron emission tomography to the study of panic disorder

Positron emission tomography was used to study eight patients with panic disorder who were vulnerable to lactate-induced panic, eight patients with panic disorder who were not vulnerable to lactate-induced panic, and 25 normal control subjects. Patients who were vulnerable to lactate-induced panic had several abnormalities in the resting, nonpanic state: an abnormal hemispheric asymmetry of parahippocampal blood flow, blood volume, and oxygen metabolism; abnormally high whole brain metabolism; and abnormal susceptibility to episodic hyperventilation. A hypothetical model for the neurobiology of panic disorder, involving the abnormal parahippocampal region and its afferent and efferent connections, is proposed.

Practice Parameter: diagnosis and prognosis of new onset Parkinson disease (an evidence-based review) [RETIRED]: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

OBJECTIVE

To define key issues in the diagnosis of Parkinson disease (PD), to define features influencing progression, and to make evidence-based recommendations. Two clinical questions were identified: 1) Which clinical features and diagnostic modalities distinguish PD from other parkinsonian syndromes? 2) Which clinical features predict rate of disease progression?

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature was completed. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme. Recommendations were based on the evidence.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Early falls, poor response to levodopa, symmetry of motor manifestations, lack of tremor, and early autonomic dysfunction are probably useful in distinguishing other parkinsonian syndromes from Parkinson disease (PD). 2. Levodopa or apomorphine challenge and olfactory testing are probably useful in distinguishing PD from other parkinsonian syndromes. 3. Predictive factors for more rapid motor progression, nursing home placement, and shorter survival time include older age at onset of PD, associated comorbidities, presentation with rigidity and bradykinesia, and decreased dopamine responsiveness. Future research into methods for earlier and more accurate diagnosis of the disease and identification and clarification of predictive factors of rapid disease progression is warranted.

Practice Parameter: Neuroprotective strategies and alternative therapies for Parkinson disease (an evidence-based review): [RETIRED]

OBJECTIVE

To define key issues in the management of Parkinson disease (PD) relating to neuroprotective strategies and alternative treatments, and to make evidence-based treatment recommendations.

METHODS

Two clinical questions were identified. 1) In a patient diagnosed with PD, are there any therapies that can slow disease progression? 2) Are there any nonstandard pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic therapies that have been shown to improve motor function in PD? Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme. Recommendations were based on the evidence.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Levodopa does not appear to accelerate disease progression. 2. No treatment has been shown to be neuroprotective. 3. There is no evidence that vitamin or food additives can improve motor function in PD. 4. Exercise may be helpful in improving motor function. 5. Speech therapy may be helpful in improving speech volume. 6. No manual therapy has been shown to be helpful in the treatment of motor symptoms, although studies in this area are limited. Further studies using a rigorous scientific method are needed to determine efficacy of alternative therapies.

Predicted sensitivity to endocrine therapy for stage II-III hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer before chemo-endocrine therapy

BACKGROUND

We proposed that a test for sensitivity to the adjuvant endocrine therapy component of treatment for patients with stage II-III breast cancer (SET2,3) should measure transcription related to estrogen and progesterone receptors (SET_ER/PR index) adjusted for a baseline prognostic index (BPI) combining clinical tumor and nodal stage with molecular subtype by RNA4 (ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and AURKA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with clinically high-risk, hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer received neoadjuvant taxane-anthracycline chemotherapy, surgery with measurement of residual cancer burden (RCB), and then adjuvant endocrine therapy. SET2,3 was measured from pre-treatment tumor biopsies, evaluated first in an MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) cohort (n = 307, 11 years' follow-up, U133A microarrays), cut point was determined, and then independent, blinded evaluation was carried out in the I-SPY2 trial (n = 268, high-risk MammaPrint result, 3.8 years' follow-up, Agilent-44K microarrays, NCI Clinical Trials ID: NCT01042379). Primary outcome measure was distant relapse-free survival. Multivariate Cox regression models tested prognostic independence of SET2,3 relative to RCB and other molecular prognostic signatures, and whether other prognostic signatures could substitute for SET_ER/PR or RNA4 components of SET2,3.

RESULTS

SET2,3 added independent prognostic information to RCB in the MDACC cohort: SET2,3 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.23, P = 0.004] and RCB (HR 1.77, P < 0.001); and the I-SPY2 trial: SET2,3 (HR 0.27, P = 0.031) and RCB (HR 1.68, P = 0.008). SET2,3 provided similar prognostic information irrespective of whether RCB-II or RCB-III after chemotherapy, and in both luminal subtypes. Conversely, RCB was most strongly prognostic in cancers with low SET2,3 status (MDACC P < 0.001, I-SPY2 P < 0.001). Other molecular signatures were not independently prognostic; they could effectively substitute for RNA4 subtype within the BPI component of SET2,3, but they could not effectively substitute for SET_ER/PR index.

CONCLUSIONS

SET2,3 added independent prognostic information to chemotherapy response (RCB) and baseline prognostic score or subtype. Approximately 40% of patients with clinically high-risk HR+/HER2- disease had high SET2,3 and could be considered for clinical trials of neoadjuvant endocrine-based treatment.

One-hour intraocular pressure response to timolol. Lack of correlation with long-term response

The initial topical administration of 1 drop of 0.25% timolol maleate in 25 nontreated ocular hypertensive patients resulted in a significant reduction of mean intraocular pressure one hour later, from a baseline of 28.1 +/- 5.3 (mean +/- SD) mm Hg to 18.5 +/- 4.5 mm Hg. Two patients (8%) failed to show at least a 10% decreases in IOP one hour after the initial administration. After three to four weeks of twice a day unilateral therapy with 0.25% timolol, mean IOP increased to 21.1 +/- 4.2 mm Hg. At this time seven patients (28%) failed to obtain a 10% decrease in IOP from topical timolol administration. Changing to 0.5% timolol for three to four weeks did not cause an additional significant lowering of IOP (20.4 +/- 3.5 mm Hg). At this time five patients (20%) had less than a 10% reduction in IOP. The one-hour response failed to predict future IOP nonresponsiveness.

Abstract P6-11-04: The evaluation of ganitumab/metformin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 trial

Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer - investigational agent(I) +paclitaxel(T) qwk, doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide(AC) q2-3 wk x 4 vs. T/AC (control arm). The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens that have ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (statistical significance) in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) & HER2 status & MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (&lt; 10% probability of success) or following accrual of maximum sample size (10%&lt; probability of success &lt;85%). We report the results for experimental arm Ganitumab, a type I insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R) inhibitor. IGF1R inhibitors are known to induce insulin resistance and all patients assigned to Ganitumab received metformin.

Methods: Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ and HER2+ tumors were ineligible for randomization. Hemoglobin A1C≥ 8.0% were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, at completion of weekly T and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to improve the efficiency of adaptive randomization. Ganitumab was given at 12mg/kg q2 weeks and metformin at 850mg PO BID, while receiving ganitumab. Analysis was intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCRs. Ganitumab/metformin was open only to HER2- patients, and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-.

Results: Ganitumab/metformin did not meet the criteria for graduation in the 3 signatures tested. When the maximum sample size was reached, accrual to this arm stopped. Ganitumab/metformin was assigned to 106 patients; there were 128 controls. We report probabilities of superiority for Ganitumab/metformin over control and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in a neoadjuvant phase 3 trial equally randomized between Ganitumab/metformin and control, for each of the 3 biomarker signatures, using the final pathological response data from all patients. Safety data will be presented.

SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability Ganitumab/ Metformin Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3 Ganitumab/ Metformin N = 106Control N = 128  All HER2-22% (13%-31%)16% (10%-23%)89%33%HR+/HER2-14% (4%-24%)12% (4%-19%)66%21%HR-/HER2-32% (17%-46%)21% (11%-32%)91%51%

Conclusion: The I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization study estimates the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a phase 3 neoadjuvant trial. The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent's likelihood of achieving pCR. For Ganitumab/metformin, no subtype came close to the efficacy threshold of 85% likelihood of success in phase 3, and this regimen does not appear to impact upfront reduction of tumor burden. Our data do not support its continued development for the neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer.

Citation Format: Yee D, Paoloni M, van't Veer L, Sanil A, Yau C, Forero A, Chien AJ, Wallace AM, Moulder S, Albain KS, Kaplan HG, Elias AD, Haley BB, Boughey JC, Kemmer KA, Korde LA, Isaacs C, Minton S, Nanda R, DeMichele A, Lang JE, Buxton MB, Hylton NM, Symmans WF, Lyandres J, Hogarth M, Perlmutter J, Esserman LJ, Berry DA. The evaluation of ganitumab/metformin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-11-04.

Improving evidence developed from population-level experience with targeted agents

Off-label drug use is common in oncology, due in part to significant unmet medical need, the rarity of many cancers, and the difficulty of conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support labeling of every drug in every disease setting. As new drugs are developed for use in tumors defined by genomic aberrations, it may be scientifically reasonable to expect that a targeted anti-cancer agent with efficacy in a biomarker-defined population within one tumor type may also have activity in another tumor type expressing the same biomarker. Such expectations also fuel off-label prescribing. However, the current approach to prescribing targeted agents off-label does not capture patient outcomes, thus missing an opportunity to gather data that could validate this approach. We explore the potential for collecting such data, highlight two proposals for oncology-specific patient registries, and put forward considerations that should be addressed to move toward better evidence development around off-label use.

Abstract P6-11-02: Efficacy of Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 trial

Background:Pathologic complete response(pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy is an established prognostic biomarker for high-risk breast cancer(BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. I-SPY 2 uses response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer; the goal is to identify regimens that have ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (statistical significance) in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status and MammaPrint (MP). We report the results for Ganetespib, a selective inhibitor of Hsp90 that induces the degradation/deactivation of key drivers of tumor initiation, progression, angiogenesis, and metastasis.Ganetespib + taxanes previously have resulted in a superior therapeutic response compared to monotherapy in multiple solid tumor models including BC.

Methods:Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening and participation. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible for randomization. QTcF &gt;470msec and HbA1C &gt;8.0% were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, +3 cycles, following weekly paclitaxel, T, and pre-surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to improve the efficiency of adaptive randomization. Ganetespib was given with weekly T at 150 mg/m2 IV weekly (3 weeks on, 1 off). Patients were premedicated (dexamethasone 10mg and diphenhydramine HCl 25-50 mg, or therapeutic equivalents). Analysis was intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCRs. The Ganetespib regimen was open only to HER2- patients, and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+/HER2- and HR-/HER2-.

Results:Ganetespib did not meet the criteria for graduation in the 3 signatures tested. When the maximum sample size was reached, accrual stopped. Ganetespib was assigned to 93 patients; there were 140 controls. We report probabilities of superiority for Ganetespib over control and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in a neoadjuvant phase 3 trial equally randomized between Ganetespib and control, for the 3 biomarker signatures, using the final pCR data from all patients. Safety data will be presented.

SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability Ganetespib Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Ganetespib Success in a Phase 3 Trial Ganetespib N = 93Control N = 140  All HER2-26% (16%-37%)18% (8%-28%)91%47%HR+/HER2-15% (4%-27%)14% (4%-24%)60%19%HR-/HER2-38% (23%-53%)22% (9%-35%)96%72%

Conclusion:The I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization model efficiently evaluates investigational agents in the setting of neoadjuvant BC. The value of I-SPY 2 is that it provides insight as to the regimen's likelihood of success in a phase 3 neoadjuvant study. Although no signature reached the efficacy threshold of 85% likelihood of success in phase 3, we observed the most impact in HR-/HER2- patients, with a 16% improvement in pCR rate. While our data do not support the continued development of Ganetespib alone for neoadjuvant BC, combinations with Ganetespib, which could potentiate its effect, may be worth pursuing in I-SPY 2 or similar trials.

Citation Format: Forero A, Yee D, Buxton MB, Symmans WF, Chien AJ, Boughey JC, Elias AD, DeMichele A, Moulder S, Minton S, Kaplan HG, Albain KS, Wallace AM, Haley BB, Isaacs C, Korde LA, Nanda R, Lang JE, Kemmer KA, Hylton NM, Paoloni M, van't Veer L, Lyandres J, Perlmutter J, Hogarth M, Yau C, Sanil A, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. Efficacy of Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-11-02.

Abstract P5-07-02: I-SPY 2 Clinical Trial: Advocate Involvement in Protocol, Informed Consent and Patient Support Materials Development

Background: I-SPY 2 is an innovative collaboration to assess 8-12 investigational agents and numerous biomarkers in an adaptive, neoadjuvant clinical trial for patients with locally advanced breast cancer and a high likelihood of recurrence. The first site opened in March 2010, and the trial will eventually open in up to 20 sites and enroll 800 patients. Helping patients understand complex clinical trials and make informed decisions about participating in them continues to be a challenge. In the interest of meeting regulatory requirements and protecting participating institutions, informed consent documents often confuse potential patients rather than inform them. I-SPY 2 investigators engaged advocates to ensure that informed consent documents were as patient friendly as possible, and to provide supplementary materials to assist patients obtain the information a way that meets their individual learning styles and information needs. Methods: A network of over 170 advocates from around the US have been informed about the I-SPY 2 trial through presentations at SABCS, webinars, a website and monthly email updates. About 25 of these advocates, including novice and experienced advocates, provided input into the protocol, informed consent documents and/or patient support materials. A virtual process (email and teleconferences) was used to plan, develop and finalize patient support materials and to review multiple versions of all documents. A survey to assess this collaboration was conducted once the trial launched. It was distributed to 25 advocates and 8 staff/investigators. This survey captured: 1) key contributions made by the advocates; 2) amount of time spent on various activities; and 3) perceptions about success of the process.

Discussion: Seventeen advocates responses were received, with nine of the seventeen involved in each of the three components—protocol, informed consent, and patient support materials. A majority of the advocates spent between 5 and 9 hours reviewing documents plus between 2 and 9 hours on teleconferences. Both advocates and staff believed that a majority of advocates’ suggestions were incorporated into the final material. However, several of the advocate recommendations were rejected by IRBs, although concerns varied by site. Both investigators and advocates felt the process was a successful collaboration that will improve patient experiences and are likely to improve accrual and compliance. In addition to changing the documents themselves, advocate suggestions led to several changes in the trial procedures. For example, the trial uses a two stage consent process—one to obtain tissue for screening and randomization, and a second to enroll in the treatment phase of the trial. Also, procedures have been defined for collecting data about specific reasons patients decline to participate, and informing patients who are found ineligible for the trial and when investigational agents are removed from the trial. Details from the survey provide information about: 1) the types of contributions re likely to result from involving advocates; and 2) how to structure the collaboration to maximize satisfaction and contribution. Future research will assess patients reactions to the materials developed for I-SPY 2.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-07-02.

Abstract P2-07-03: Refining neoadjuvant predictors of three year distant metastasis free survival: Integrating volume change as measured by MRI with residual cancer burden

Background: Patients achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy have significantly improved event-free survival relative to those who do not; and pCR is an FDA-accepted endpoint to support accelerated approval of novel agents/combinations in the neoadjuvant treatment of high risk early stage breast cancer. Previous studies have shown that recurrence risk increased with increasing burden of residual disease (as assessed by the RCB index). As well, these studies suggest that patients with minimum residual disease (RCB-I class) also have favorable outcomes (comparable to those achieving a pCR) within high risk tumor subtypes. In this study, we assess whether integrating RCB with MRI functional tumor volume (FTV), which in itself is prognostic, can improve prediction of distant recurrence free survival (DRFS); and identify a subset of patients with minimal residual disease with comparable DRFS as those who achieved a pCR. Imaging tools can then be used to identify the subset that will do well early and guide the timing of surgical therapy.

Method: We performed a pooled analysis of 596 patients from the I-SPY2 TRIAL with RCB, pre-surgical MRI FTV data and known follow-up (median 2.5 years). We first assessed whether FTV predicts residual disease (pCR or pCR/RCB-I) using ROC analysis. We applied a power transformation to normalize the pre-surgical FTV distribution; and assessed its association with DRFS using a bi-variate Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for HR/HER2 subtype. We also fitted a bivariate Cox model of RCB index adjusting for subtype; and assessed whether adding pre-surgical FTV to this model further improves association with DRFS using a likelihood ratio (LR) test. For the Cox modeling, penalized splines approximation of the transformed FTV and RCB index with 2 degrees of freedom was used to allow for non-linear effects of FTV and RCB on DRFS.

Result: Pre-surgical MRI FTV is significantly associated with DRFS (Wald p&lt;0.00001), and more effective at predicting pCR/RCB-I than predicting pCR alone (AUC: 0.72 vs. 0.65). Larger pre-surgical FTV remains associated with worse DRFS adjusting for subtype (Wald p &lt;0.00001). The RCB index is also significantly associated with DRFS adjusting for subtype (Wald p&lt;0.00001). Adding FTV to a model containing RCB and subtype further improves association with DRFS (LR p=0.0007). RCB-I patients have excellent DRFS (94% at 3 years compared to 95% in the pCR group). Efforts are underway to identify an optimal threshold for dichotomizing pre-surgical FTV and FTV change measures for use in combination with pCR/RCB-I class to generate integrated RCB (iRCB) groups as a composite predictor of DRFS.

Conclusion: Pre-surgical MRI FTV is effective at predicting minimal residual disease (RCB0/I) in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Despite the association between FTV and RCB, FTV appears to provide independent added prognostic value (to RCB and subtype), suggesting that integrating MRI volume measures and RCB into a composite predictor may improve DRFS prediction.

Citation Format: Hylton NM, Symmans WF, Yau C, Li W, Hatzis C, Isaacs C, Albain KS, Chen Y-Y, Krings G, Wei S, Harada S, Datnow B, Fadare O, Klein M, Pambuccian S, Chen B, Adamson K, Sams S, Mhawech-Fauceglia P, Magliocco A, Feldman M, Rendi M, Sattar H, Zeck J, Ocal I, Tawfik O, Grasso LeBeau L, Sahoo S, Vinh T, Yang S, Adams A, Chien AJ, Ferero-Torres A, Stringer-Reasor E, Wallace A, Boughey JC, Ellis ED, Elias AD, Lang JE, Lu J, Han HS, Clark AS, Korde L, Nanda R, Northfelt DW, Khan QJ, Viscusi RK, Euhus DM, Edmiston KK, Chui SY, Kemmer K, Wood WC, Park JW, Liu MC, Olopade O, Tripathy D, Moulder SL, Rugo HS, Schwab R, Lo S, Helsten T, Beckwith H, Haugen PK, van't Veer LJ, Perlmutter J, Melisko ME, Wilson A, Peterson G, Asare AL, Buxton MB, Paoloni M, Clennell JL, Hirst GL, Singhrao R, Steeg K, Matthews JB, Sanil A, Berry SM, Abe H, Wolverton D, Crane EP, Ward KA, Nelson M, Niell BL, Oh K, Brandt KR, Bang DH, Ojeda-Fournier H, Eghtedari M, Sheth PA, Bernreuter WK, Umphrey H, Rosen MA, Dogan B, Yang W, Joe B, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Yee D, Pusztai L, DeMichele A, Asare SM, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. Refining neoadjuvant predictors of three year distant metastasis free survival: Integrating volume change as measured by MRI with residual cancer burden [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-07-03.

Abstract P1-15-02: Withdrawn

This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.

Citation Format: Schwab R, Clark A, Yau C, Wolf D, Chien AJ, Majure M, Ewing C, Wallace A, Roesch E, Helsten T, Forero A, Stringer-Reasor E, Vaklavas C, Nanda R, Jaskowiak N, Boughey J, Haddad T, Han H, Lee C, Albain K, Isaacs C, Elias A, Ellis E, Shah P, Lang J, Lu J, Tripathy D, Kemmer K, Yee D, Haley B, Korde L, Edmiston K, Northfelt D, Viscusi R, Khan Q, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Symmans WF, Perlmutter J, Hylton N, Rugo H, Melisko M, Wilson A, Singhrao R, Asare S, van't Veer L, DeMichele A, Berry D, Esserman L. Withdrawn [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-15-02.

Abstract P2-12-03: I-SPY 2 Clinical Trial: Telephone Support Provided by Peer Counselors

Background: I-SPY 2 is an innovative collaboration to assess 8-12 investigational agents and numerous biomarkers in an adaptive, neoadjuvant clinical trial for patients with locally advanced breast cancer and a high likelihood of recurrence. The first site opened in March 2010, and the trial will eventually open in up to 20 sites and enroll 800 patients. It is well known that patients who have recently been diagnosed with breast cancer are often overwhelmed, frightened and cognitively impaired. Making treatment decisions and dealing with the strain of treatment are among the most traumatic events patients are likely to experience. Nevertheless, they are often significantly helped by peer support. Methods: The Breast Cancer Network of Strength (formerly Y-ME) provides 24x7 peer support for callers seeking information and/or support related to breast cancer. All peer counselors are trained and certified breast cancer survivors. I-SPY 2 partnered with this organization to leverage their services in the I-SPY 2 trial. In particular, ten experienced peer counselors received a day of training to prepare them to counsel I-SPY 2 patients. They learned about the details of the trial, support materials available to patients (i.e., I-SPY 2 brochure, DVD and website), and specific challenges patients going through the trial are likely to face. Training included extensive role play exercises. When patients agree to treatment within the I-SPY 2 trial, they are offered the option of peer counseling. If they so choose, a counselor will call five times during their six months of treatment. Calls will be scheduled to meet the needs of individual patients, but are expected to take place: 1) shortly after enrollment; 2) a week after the first chemotherapy treatment; 3) shortly after completion of pacitaxel and any investigational agent; 4) shortly before surgery; and 5) shortly after surgery. The goals of providing peer support to I-SPY2 participants are to: 1) provide participants with an opportunity to discuss their diagnosis,treatment, and trial issues to validate emotions and provide support for dealing with the rigors of receiving breast cancer treatment; 2) help patients understand and anticipate upcoming aspects of their treatment; and 3) encourage patients to comply with trial requirements and raise concerns with their health care providers. Discussion: The I-SPY 2 trial initially planned to offer patients who were deciding whether to participate in the trial the option of speaking to a peer counselor. However, one IRB objected to this use of peer counselors despite demonstration of peer counselors being helpful and not coercive. For example, when this service was provided in CALGB 49907, a majority of patients who used the service expressed appreciation of counseling, but only about 50% who spoke to counselors enrolled in the trial. In the current study, use of peer counselors will initially be restricted to enrolled patients. However, it is likely that it be expanded to patients contemplating participation at sites where IRBs agree. Future research will clarify which patients request counselors and why, how they view their experience, and to what extent peer counseling influences patient enrollment, compliance and trial completion.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-03.