AVAHO

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivor rates are improving, which means people are living long enough after the cancer to have other chronic conditions. CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among users of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, according to VA researchers, and there is a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers also say emerging evidence suggests that survivors of CRC may be more likely to develop diabetes mellitus (DM) in the 5 years following their cancer diagnosis. But they add that there is a paucity of research about control of CVD-related chronic conditions among survivors of CRC.

In a retrospective study, the researchers compared 9,758 nonmetastatic patients with CRC with 29,066 people who had not had cancer. At baseline, 69% of the survivors of CRC and the matched controls were diagnosed with hypertension, 52% with hyperlipidemia, and 37% with DM.

But somewhat contrary to expectations, the researchers found no significant differences between the 2 groups for DM in the year following the baseline assessment. The researchers point to the VA’s “strong history” of DM risk reduction research and 2 national programs targeting DM, although they do not know whether the people in their study participated in those.

The survivors of CRC also had half the odds of being diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. However, they did have 57% higher odds of being diagnosed with hypertension.

Although the researchers acknowledge that hypertension is a transient adverse effect of certain chemotherapy regimens, they found only 7 survivors of CRC and 11 controls were treated with bevacizumab during their first year postanchor date.

The relationship between nonmetastatic CRC and CVD risk-related chronic conditions is complex, the researchers say. But they share risk factors, including obesity, physical inactivity, and diet.

The researchers call behavioral change interventions that improve survivors of CRC physical activity, dietary habits, and body mass index a “promising beginning” but call for other similar interventions, particularly those targeting blood pressure management and adherence to antihypertensive medications (which was significantly lower among the survivors).

While the magnitude of the effect regarding hypertension seems relatively small, the researchers say, they believe it is still an important difference when considered from a population health perspective—and one that should be addressed. The researchers also note that nonmetastatic survivors of CRC and controls had very similar rates of primary care visits in the 3 years postanchor date and as a result similar opportunities to receive a hypertension diagnosis.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivor rates are improving, which means people are living long enough after the cancer to have other chronic conditions. CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among users of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, according to VA researchers, and there is a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers also say emerging evidence suggests that survivors of CRC may be more likely to develop diabetes mellitus (DM) in the 5 years following their cancer diagnosis. But they add that there is a paucity of research about control of CVD-related chronic conditions among survivors of CRC.

In a retrospective study, the researchers compared 9,758 nonmetastatic patients with CRC with 29,066 people who had not had cancer. At baseline, 69% of the survivors of CRC and the matched controls were diagnosed with hypertension, 52% with hyperlipidemia, and 37% with DM.

But somewhat contrary to expectations, the researchers found no significant differences between the 2 groups for DM in the year following the baseline assessment. The researchers point to the VA’s “strong history” of DM risk reduction research and 2 national programs targeting DM, although they do not know whether the people in their study participated in those.

The survivors of CRC also had half the odds of being diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. However, they did have 57% higher odds of being diagnosed with hypertension.

Although the researchers acknowledge that hypertension is a transient adverse effect of certain chemotherapy regimens, they found only 7 survivors of CRC and 11 controls were treated with bevacizumab during their first year postanchor date.

The relationship between nonmetastatic CRC and CVD risk-related chronic conditions is complex, the researchers say. But they share risk factors, including obesity, physical inactivity, and diet.

The researchers call behavioral change interventions that improve survivors of CRC physical activity, dietary habits, and body mass index a “promising beginning” but call for other similar interventions, particularly those targeting blood pressure management and adherence to antihypertensive medications (which was significantly lower among the survivors).

While the magnitude of the effect regarding hypertension seems relatively small, the researchers say, they believe it is still an important difference when considered from a population health perspective—and one that should be addressed. The researchers also note that nonmetastatic survivors of CRC and controls had very similar rates of primary care visits in the 3 years postanchor date and as a result similar opportunities to receive a hypertension diagnosis.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivor rates are improving, which means people are living long enough after the cancer to have other chronic conditions. CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among users of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, according to VA researchers, and there is a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers also say emerging evidence suggests that survivors of CRC may be more likely to develop diabetes mellitus (DM) in the 5 years following their cancer diagnosis. But they add that there is a paucity of research about control of CVD-related chronic conditions among survivors of CRC.

In a retrospective study, the researchers compared 9,758 nonmetastatic patients with CRC with 29,066 people who had not had cancer. At baseline, 69% of the survivors of CRC and the matched controls were diagnosed with hypertension, 52% with hyperlipidemia, and 37% with DM.

But somewhat contrary to expectations, the researchers found no significant differences between the 2 groups for DM in the year following the baseline assessment. The researchers point to the VA’s “strong history” of DM risk reduction research and 2 national programs targeting DM, although they do not know whether the people in their study participated in those.

The survivors of CRC also had half the odds of being diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. However, they did have 57% higher odds of being diagnosed with hypertension.

Although the researchers acknowledge that hypertension is a transient adverse effect of certain chemotherapy regimens, they found only 7 survivors of CRC and 11 controls were treated with bevacizumab during their first year postanchor date.

The relationship between nonmetastatic CRC and CVD risk-related chronic conditions is complex, the researchers say. But they share risk factors, including obesity, physical inactivity, and diet.

The researchers call behavioral change interventions that improve survivors of CRC physical activity, dietary habits, and body mass index a “promising beginning” but call for other similar interventions, particularly those targeting blood pressure management and adherence to antihypertensive medications (which was significantly lower among the survivors).

While the magnitude of the effect regarding hypertension seems relatively small, the researchers say, they believe it is still an important difference when considered from a population health perspective—and one that should be addressed. The researchers also note that nonmetastatic survivors of CRC and controls had very similar rates of primary care visits in the 3 years postanchor date and as a result similar opportunities to receive a hypertension diagnosis.

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors or cosponsors nearly 1,000 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of August 1, 201 8 ; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lung-MAP (multiple trials)

Lung-MAP (SWOG S1400) is a multidrug, multi-substudy, biomarker-driven squamous cell lung cancer clinical trial that uses state-of-the-art genomic profiling to match patients to substudies testing investigational treatments that may target the genomic alterations, or mutations, found to be driving the growth of their cancer.

ID: NCT02154490, NCT02595944, NCT02766335, NCT02785913, NCT02785939, NCT02926638, NCT02965378, NCT03373760, NCT03377556
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Ann Arbor VAMC, Michigan; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC Houston, Texas

ALCHEMIST: Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (multiple trials)

A group of randomized clinical trials for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have been completely removed by surgery.

ID: NCT02193282, NCT02194738, NCT02201992, NCT02595944
Sponsor: National Cancer Institute
Locations: Little Rock VAMC, Arkansas; VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Saint Louis VAMC, Missouri; Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System-Brooklyn Campus; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; William S. Middleton VAMC, Madison, Wisconsin

Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)

The standard of care for stage I non-small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggests that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of two incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these two treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life-expectancy, and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.

ID: NCT02984761
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minnesota; Durham VAMC, North Carolina; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, Texas; Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia

Naloxegol in Treating Patients With Stage IIIB-IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

This randomized pilot clinical trial studies the side effects and best dose of naloxegol and to see how well it works in treating patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer. Naloxegol may relieve some of the side effects of opioid pain medication and fight off future growth in the cancer.

ID: NCT03087708
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System-Buffalo; Salisbury VAMC, North Carolina

Palliative Care Interventions for Outpatients Newly Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: Phase II (PCI2)

The focus of the study is to test a nurse-led telephone-based palliative care intervention on improving the delivery of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The study is a three site randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of the intervention on improving patients’ quality of life, symptom burden, and satisfaction of care. Additionally, the study will test an innovative care delivery model to improve patients’ access to palliative care. The investigators will also determine the effect of the intervention on patient activation to discuss treatment preferences with their clinician and on clinician knowledge of patients’ goals of care.

ID: NCT03007953
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Birmingham VAMC, Alabama; VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon; VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Washington

Radiation Therapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin and Etoposide

Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill tumor cells. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as etoposide, carboplatin and cisplatin, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known which radiation therapy regimen is more effective when given together with chemotherapy in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. This randomized phase III trial is comparing different chest radiation therapy regimens to see how well they work in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.

ID: NCT00632853
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Baltimore VAMC, Maryland; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System, Buffalo, New York; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Comparison of Different Types of Surgery in Treating Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Wedge resection or segmentectomy may be less invasive types of surgery than lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer and may have fewer side effects and improve recovery. It is not yet known whether wedge resection or segmentectomy are more effective than lobectomy in treating stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.

ID: NCT00499330
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: VA Loma Linda Healthcare System, California; VA Long Beach Medical Center, California; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland VAMC, Oregon

Lung Cancer Screening Decisions (VA-LCSDecTool)

Veterans have a high risk of developing lung in comparison to general populations due to their older age and smoking history. Recent evidence indicates that lung cancer screening with low dose CT scan reduces lung cancer mortality among older heavy smokers. However, the rates of false positive findings are high, requiring further testing and evaluation. Preliminary studies report that while some Veterans are enthusiastic about screening, others are highly reluctant. Patient preferences should be considered as part of an informed decision making process for this emerging paradigm of lung cancer control. Effective methods for preference assessment among Veterans have not yet been developed, evaluated, and integrated into clinical practice. The specific aims of this study are to 1) elicit patient and provider stakeholder input to inform the development of a lung cancer screening decision tool, 2) develop a web based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) that incorporates patient and provider input, and 3) evaluate the impact of the LCSDecTool compared to usual care on the decision process, clinical outcomes, and quality of life.

ID: NCT02899754
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Molecular Predictors of Cancer in Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer

Using samples of blood, urine, sputum, and lung tissue from patients at high risk of cancer for laboratory studies may help doctors learn more about changes that may occur in DNA and identify biomarkers related to cancer.

ID: NCT00898313
Sponsor: Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Location: VAMC Nashville, Tennessee

Improving Supportive Care for Patients With Thoracic Malignancies

The purpose of this study is to use a proactive approach to improve symptom management of patients with thoracic malignancies. In this pilot study, the investigators propose to evaluate the feasibility of using outbound, proactive telephone symptom assessment strategies and measure the efficacy of this approach on patient satisfaction with their care, patient activation, quality of life and use of healthcare resources.

ID: NCT03216109
Sponsor: Palo Alto Veterans Institute for Research
Location: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors or cosponsors nearly 1,000 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of August 1, 201 8 ; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lung-MAP (multiple trials)

Lung-MAP (SWOG S1400) is a multidrug, multi-substudy, biomarker-driven squamous cell lung cancer clinical trial that uses state-of-the-art genomic profiling to match patients to substudies testing investigational treatments that may target the genomic alterations, or mutations, found to be driving the growth of their cancer.

ID: NCT02154490, NCT02595944, NCT02766335, NCT02785913, NCT02785939, NCT02926638, NCT02965378, NCT03373760, NCT03377556
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Ann Arbor VAMC, Michigan; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC Houston, Texas

ALCHEMIST: Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (multiple trials)

A group of randomized clinical trials for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have been completely removed by surgery.

ID: NCT02193282, NCT02194738, NCT02201992, NCT02595944
Sponsor: National Cancer Institute
Locations: Little Rock VAMC, Arkansas; VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Saint Louis VAMC, Missouri; Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System-Brooklyn Campus; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; William S. Middleton VAMC, Madison, Wisconsin

Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)

The standard of care for stage I non-small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggests that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of two incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these two treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life-expectancy, and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.

ID: NCT02984761
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minnesota; Durham VAMC, North Carolina; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, Texas; Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia

Naloxegol in Treating Patients With Stage IIIB-IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

This randomized pilot clinical trial studies the side effects and best dose of naloxegol and to see how well it works in treating patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer. Naloxegol may relieve some of the side effects of opioid pain medication and fight off future growth in the cancer.

ID: NCT03087708
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System-Buffalo; Salisbury VAMC, North Carolina

Palliative Care Interventions for Outpatients Newly Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: Phase II (PCI2)

The focus of the study is to test a nurse-led telephone-based palliative care intervention on improving the delivery of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The study is a three site randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of the intervention on improving patients’ quality of life, symptom burden, and satisfaction of care. Additionally, the study will test an innovative care delivery model to improve patients’ access to palliative care. The investigators will also determine the effect of the intervention on patient activation to discuss treatment preferences with their clinician and on clinician knowledge of patients’ goals of care.

ID: NCT03007953
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Birmingham VAMC, Alabama; VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon; VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Washington

Radiation Therapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin and Etoposide

Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill tumor cells. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as etoposide, carboplatin and cisplatin, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known which radiation therapy regimen is more effective when given together with chemotherapy in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. This randomized phase III trial is comparing different chest radiation therapy regimens to see how well they work in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.

ID: NCT00632853
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Baltimore VAMC, Maryland; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System, Buffalo, New York; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Comparison of Different Types of Surgery in Treating Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Wedge resection or segmentectomy may be less invasive types of surgery than lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer and may have fewer side effects and improve recovery. It is not yet known whether wedge resection or segmentectomy are more effective than lobectomy in treating stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.

ID: NCT00499330
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: VA Loma Linda Healthcare System, California; VA Long Beach Medical Center, California; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland VAMC, Oregon

Lung Cancer Screening Decisions (VA-LCSDecTool)

Veterans have a high risk of developing lung in comparison to general populations due to their older age and smoking history. Recent evidence indicates that lung cancer screening with low dose CT scan reduces lung cancer mortality among older heavy smokers. However, the rates of false positive findings are high, requiring further testing and evaluation. Preliminary studies report that while some Veterans are enthusiastic about screening, others are highly reluctant. Patient preferences should be considered as part of an informed decision making process for this emerging paradigm of lung cancer control. Effective methods for preference assessment among Veterans have not yet been developed, evaluated, and integrated into clinical practice. The specific aims of this study are to 1) elicit patient and provider stakeholder input to inform the development of a lung cancer screening decision tool, 2) develop a web based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) that incorporates patient and provider input, and 3) evaluate the impact of the LCSDecTool compared to usual care on the decision process, clinical outcomes, and quality of life.

ID: NCT02899754
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Molecular Predictors of Cancer in Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer

Using samples of blood, urine, sputum, and lung tissue from patients at high risk of cancer for laboratory studies may help doctors learn more about changes that may occur in DNA and identify biomarkers related to cancer.

ID: NCT00898313
Sponsor: Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Location: VAMC Nashville, Tennessee

Improving Supportive Care for Patients With Thoracic Malignancies

The purpose of this study is to use a proactive approach to improve symptom management of patients with thoracic malignancies. In this pilot study, the investigators propose to evaluate the feasibility of using outbound, proactive telephone symptom assessment strategies and measure the efficacy of this approach on patient satisfaction with their care, patient activation, quality of life and use of healthcare resources.

ID: NCT03216109
Sponsor: Palo Alto Veterans Institute for Research
Location: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors or cosponsors nearly 1,000 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of August 1, 201 8 ; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lung-MAP (multiple trials)

Lung-MAP (SWOG S1400) is a multidrug, multi-substudy, biomarker-driven squamous cell lung cancer clinical trial that uses state-of-the-art genomic profiling to match patients to substudies testing investigational treatments that may target the genomic alterations, or mutations, found to be driving the growth of their cancer.

ID: NCT02154490, NCT02595944, NCT02766335, NCT02785913, NCT02785939, NCT02926638, NCT02965378, NCT03373760, NCT03377556
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Ann Arbor VAMC, Michigan; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC Houston, Texas

ALCHEMIST: Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (multiple trials)

A group of randomized clinical trials for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have been completely removed by surgery.

ID: NCT02193282, NCT02194738, NCT02201992, NCT02595944
Sponsor: National Cancer Institute
Locations: Little Rock VAMC, Arkansas; VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Saint Louis VAMC, Missouri; Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System-Brooklyn Campus; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; William S. Middleton VAMC, Madison, Wisconsin

Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)

The standard of care for stage I non-small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggests that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of two incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these two treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life-expectancy, and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.

ID: NCT02984761
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minnesota; Durham VAMC, North Carolina; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, Texas; Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia

Naloxegol in Treating Patients With Stage IIIB-IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

This randomized pilot clinical trial studies the side effects and best dose of naloxegol and to see how well it works in treating patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer. Naloxegol may relieve some of the side effects of opioid pain medication and fight off future growth in the cancer.

ID: NCT03087708
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System-Buffalo; Salisbury VAMC, North Carolina

Palliative Care Interventions for Outpatients Newly Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: Phase II (PCI2)

The focus of the study is to test a nurse-led telephone-based palliative care intervention on improving the delivery of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The study is a three site randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of the intervention on improving patients’ quality of life, symptom burden, and satisfaction of care. Additionally, the study will test an innovative care delivery model to improve patients’ access to palliative care. The investigators will also determine the effect of the intervention on patient activation to discuss treatment preferences with their clinician and on clinician knowledge of patients’ goals of care.

ID: NCT03007953
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Birmingham VAMC, Alabama; VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon; VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Washington

Radiation Therapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin and Etoposide

Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill tumor cells. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as etoposide, carboplatin and cisplatin, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known which radiation therapy regimen is more effective when given together with chemotherapy in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. This randomized phase III trial is comparing different chest radiation therapy regimens to see how well they work in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.

ID: NCT00632853
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Baltimore VAMC, Maryland; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System, Buffalo, New York; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Comparison of Different Types of Surgery in Treating Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Wedge resection or segmentectomy may be less invasive types of surgery than lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer and may have fewer side effects and improve recovery. It is not yet known whether wedge resection or segmentectomy are more effective than lobectomy in treating stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.

ID: NCT00499330
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: VA Loma Linda Healthcare System, California; VA Long Beach Medical Center, California; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland VAMC, Oregon

Lung Cancer Screening Decisions (VA-LCSDecTool)

Veterans have a high risk of developing lung in comparison to general populations due to their older age and smoking history. Recent evidence indicates that lung cancer screening with low dose CT scan reduces lung cancer mortality among older heavy smokers. However, the rates of false positive findings are high, requiring further testing and evaluation. Preliminary studies report that while some Veterans are enthusiastic about screening, others are highly reluctant. Patient preferences should be considered as part of an informed decision making process for this emerging paradigm of lung cancer control. Effective methods for preference assessment among Veterans have not yet been developed, evaluated, and integrated into clinical practice. The specific aims of this study are to 1) elicit patient and provider stakeholder input to inform the development of a lung cancer screening decision tool, 2) develop a web based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) that incorporates patient and provider input, and 3) evaluate the impact of the LCSDecTool compared to usual care on the decision process, clinical outcomes, and quality of life.

ID: NCT02899754
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Molecular Predictors of Cancer in Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer

Using samples of blood, urine, sputum, and lung tissue from patients at high risk of cancer for laboratory studies may help doctors learn more about changes that may occur in DNA and identify biomarkers related to cancer.

ID: NCT00898313
Sponsor: Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Location: VAMC Nashville, Tennessee

Improving Supportive Care for Patients With Thoracic Malignancies

The purpose of this study is to use a proactive approach to improve symptom management of patients with thoracic malignancies. In this pilot study, the investigators propose to evaluate the feasibility of using outbound, proactive telephone symptom assessment strategies and measure the efficacy of this approach on patient satisfaction with their care, patient activation, quality of life and use of healthcare resources.

ID: NCT03216109
Sponsor: Palo Alto Veterans Institute for Research
Location: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California

Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.

There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.

Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.

Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.

However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.

“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.

There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.

Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.

Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.

SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.

Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.

There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.

Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.

Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.

However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.

“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.

There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.

Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.

Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.

SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.

Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.

There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.

Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.

Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.

However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.

“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.

They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.

There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.

Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.

Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.

SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.

LUGANO, Switzerland – In younger patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma, the chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib and rituximab followed by a short course of chemotherapy was associated with an “unprecedented” 3-year progression-free survival rate, investigators in the phase 2 WINDOW-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 50 patients aged 65 years and younger who received ibrutinib and rituximab until they achieved a complete or partial response, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with rituximab plus hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone) and rituximab plus methotrexate, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 88%, said Michael Wang, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Additionally, for patients with the low-risk features, the 3-year PFS rate was 90%.

“Chemo-free ibrutinib-rituximab induced unprecedented – unprecedented – efficacy before chemo consolidation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.

Dr. Wang presented data from an interim analysis of the investigator-initiated single-center trial. Fifty patients aged 65 years or younger with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), good performance status, and good organ function were enrolled.

The patients were treated with ibrutinib and rituximab for two cycles and then evaluated for response with PET-CT scan, bone marrow biopsy, and for some patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy with random biopsies.

In the induction phase, patients received ibrutinib daily on days 1-28 and rituximab intravenously over 6-8 hours on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and then over 4 hours on day 1 of cycles 3-12. The treatment was repeated every 28 days for up to 12 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or until patients achieved a complete response.

In the consolidation phase, patients received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; oral or IV dexamethasone on days 1-4; cyclophosphamide IV over 3 hours twice daily on days 2-4; doxorubicin IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5; and vincristine IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5 of cycles one, three, five, and seven. Patients also received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; methotrexate IV over 24 hours on day 2; and cytarabine IV over 2 hours twice daily on days 3 and 4 of cycles two, four, six, and eight. Treatments were repeated every 28 days for up to eight cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients who had a complete response (CR) after two cycles of induction and those who had disease progression on induction went on to consolidation. Patients with partial responses (PR) to induction continued on ibrutinib/rituximab until either the loss of a PR or best response for up to 12 cycles, with those who achieved a CR then moving on to consolidation.

Patients who had a CR after induction received four cycles of R-hyperCVAD, no subsequent stem cell transplant, and no maintenance therapy. Patients who had a PR after induction received two cycles of R-hyperCVAD, were reassessed, and then continued on R-hyperCVAD until CR or for up to eight total cycles.

Patients with either stable disease or progression during R-hyperCVAD were taken off the study.

Of the 50 patients enrolled, all 50 were evaluable for part A (induction), and 48 were evaluable after induction and consolidation (two patients withdrew for personal reasons).

After a median follow-up of 36 months, the overall response rate (ORR) following induction was 100%, consisting of 46 CRs (92%) and four PRs (8%).

In an intention-to-treat analysis (including the two patients who withdrew), the ORR was 96%, consisting of CRs in 47 patients (94%) and a PR in 1 patient (2%).

Neither the median PFS nor median overall survival had been reached at the time of data cutoff, and no patients have died.

Of the 50 enrolled patients, four experienced disease progression after 17, 24, 34, and 35 months of treatment. The patients with disease progression included one with Ki-67 of less than 30%, and three with KI-67 of 30% or greater.

Grade 3-4 toxicities during induction including myelosuppression in 4%; fatigue, myalgia, and rashes in 8% each; and oral mucositis in 4%.

Dr. Wang said that future studies on minimal residual disease and clonal evolution are ongoing, and that data on more patients will be presented at the next annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, scheduled for December 2019.

He also noted that the WINDOW-2 trial, in which ibrutinib and rituximab are followed by veneotclax and hyper-CVAD chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed MCL, is open and rapidly enrolling patients.

The study is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Wang M et al. ICML-15, Abstract 12.

LUGANO, Switzerland – In younger patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma, the chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib and rituximab followed by a short course of chemotherapy was associated with an “unprecedented” 3-year progression-free survival rate, investigators in the phase 2 WINDOW-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 50 patients aged 65 years and younger who received ibrutinib and rituximab until they achieved a complete or partial response, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with rituximab plus hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone) and rituximab plus methotrexate, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 88%, said Michael Wang, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Additionally, for patients with the low-risk features, the 3-year PFS rate was 90%.

“Chemo-free ibrutinib-rituximab induced unprecedented – unprecedented – efficacy before chemo consolidation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.

Dr. Wang presented data from an interim analysis of the investigator-initiated single-center trial. Fifty patients aged 65 years or younger with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), good performance status, and good organ function were enrolled.

The patients were treated with ibrutinib and rituximab for two cycles and then evaluated for response with PET-CT scan, bone marrow biopsy, and for some patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy with random biopsies.

In the induction phase, patients received ibrutinib daily on days 1-28 and rituximab intravenously over 6-8 hours on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and then over 4 hours on day 1 of cycles 3-12. The treatment was repeated every 28 days for up to 12 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or until patients achieved a complete response.

In the consolidation phase, patients received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; oral or IV dexamethasone on days 1-4; cyclophosphamide IV over 3 hours twice daily on days 2-4; doxorubicin IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5; and vincristine IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5 of cycles one, three, five, and seven. Patients also received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; methotrexate IV over 24 hours on day 2; and cytarabine IV over 2 hours twice daily on days 3 and 4 of cycles two, four, six, and eight. Treatments were repeated every 28 days for up to eight cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients who had a complete response (CR) after two cycles of induction and those who had disease progression on induction went on to consolidation. Patients with partial responses (PR) to induction continued on ibrutinib/rituximab until either the loss of a PR or best response for up to 12 cycles, with those who achieved a CR then moving on to consolidation.

Patients who had a CR after induction received four cycles of R-hyperCVAD, no subsequent stem cell transplant, and no maintenance therapy. Patients who had a PR after induction received two cycles of R-hyperCVAD, were reassessed, and then continued on R-hyperCVAD until CR or for up to eight total cycles.

Patients with either stable disease or progression during R-hyperCVAD were taken off the study.

Of the 50 patients enrolled, all 50 were evaluable for part A (induction), and 48 were evaluable after induction and consolidation (two patients withdrew for personal reasons).

After a median follow-up of 36 months, the overall response rate (ORR) following induction was 100%, consisting of 46 CRs (92%) and four PRs (8%).

In an intention-to-treat analysis (including the two patients who withdrew), the ORR was 96%, consisting of CRs in 47 patients (94%) and a PR in 1 patient (2%).

Neither the median PFS nor median overall survival had been reached at the time of data cutoff, and no patients have died.

Of the 50 enrolled patients, four experienced disease progression after 17, 24, 34, and 35 months of treatment. The patients with disease progression included one with Ki-67 of less than 30%, and three with KI-67 of 30% or greater.

Grade 3-4 toxicities during induction including myelosuppression in 4%; fatigue, myalgia, and rashes in 8% each; and oral mucositis in 4%.

Dr. Wang said that future studies on minimal residual disease and clonal evolution are ongoing, and that data on more patients will be presented at the next annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, scheduled for December 2019.

He also noted that the WINDOW-2 trial, in which ibrutinib and rituximab are followed by veneotclax and hyper-CVAD chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed MCL, is open and rapidly enrolling patients.

The study is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Wang M et al. ICML-15, Abstract 12.

LUGANO, Switzerland – In younger patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma, the chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib and rituximab followed by a short course of chemotherapy was associated with an “unprecedented” 3-year progression-free survival rate, investigators in the phase 2 WINDOW-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among 50 patients aged 65 years and younger who received ibrutinib and rituximab until they achieved a complete or partial response, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with rituximab plus hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone) and rituximab plus methotrexate, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 88%, said Michael Wang, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Additionally, for patients with the low-risk features, the 3-year PFS rate was 90%.

“Chemo-free ibrutinib-rituximab induced unprecedented – unprecedented – efficacy before chemo consolidation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.

Dr. Wang presented data from an interim analysis of the investigator-initiated single-center trial. Fifty patients aged 65 years or younger with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), good performance status, and good organ function were enrolled.

The patients were treated with ibrutinib and rituximab for two cycles and then evaluated for response with PET-CT scan, bone marrow biopsy, and for some patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy with random biopsies.

In the induction phase, patients received ibrutinib daily on days 1-28 and rituximab intravenously over 6-8 hours on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and then over 4 hours on day 1 of cycles 3-12. The treatment was repeated every 28 days for up to 12 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or until patients achieved a complete response.

In the consolidation phase, patients received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; oral or IV dexamethasone on days 1-4; cyclophosphamide IV over 3 hours twice daily on days 2-4; doxorubicin IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5; and vincristine IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5 of cycles one, three, five, and seven. Patients also received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; methotrexate IV over 24 hours on day 2; and cytarabine IV over 2 hours twice daily on days 3 and 4 of cycles two, four, six, and eight. Treatments were repeated every 28 days for up to eight cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients who had a complete response (CR) after two cycles of induction and those who had disease progression on induction went on to consolidation. Patients with partial responses (PR) to induction continued on ibrutinib/rituximab until either the loss of a PR or best response for up to 12 cycles, with those who achieved a CR then moving on to consolidation.

Patients who had a CR after induction received four cycles of R-hyperCVAD, no subsequent stem cell transplant, and no maintenance therapy. Patients who had a PR after induction received two cycles of R-hyperCVAD, were reassessed, and then continued on R-hyperCVAD until CR or for up to eight total cycles.

Patients with either stable disease or progression during R-hyperCVAD were taken off the study.

Of the 50 patients enrolled, all 50 were evaluable for part A (induction), and 48 were evaluable after induction and consolidation (two patients withdrew for personal reasons).

After a median follow-up of 36 months, the overall response rate (ORR) following induction was 100%, consisting of 46 CRs (92%) and four PRs (8%).

In an intention-to-treat analysis (including the two patients who withdrew), the ORR was 96%, consisting of CRs in 47 patients (94%) and a PR in 1 patient (2%).

Neither the median PFS nor median overall survival had been reached at the time of data cutoff, and no patients have died.

Of the 50 enrolled patients, four experienced disease progression after 17, 24, 34, and 35 months of treatment. The patients with disease progression included one with Ki-67 of less than 30%, and three with KI-67 of 30% or greater.

Grade 3-4 toxicities during induction including myelosuppression in 4%; fatigue, myalgia, and rashes in 8% each; and oral mucositis in 4%.

Dr. Wang said that future studies on minimal residual disease and clonal evolution are ongoing, and that data on more patients will be presented at the next annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, scheduled for December 2019.

He also noted that the WINDOW-2 trial, in which ibrutinib and rituximab are followed by veneotclax and hyper-CVAD chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed MCL, is open and rapidly enrolling patients.

The study is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Wang M et al. ICML-15, Abstract 12.

The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference recorded in July 2018. The teleconference brought together health care providers from the Greater Los Angeles VA Health Care System (GLAVAHCS) to discuss the real-world processes for managing the treatment of patients with prostate cancer as they move between primary and specialist care.

William J. Aronson, MD. We are fortunate in having a superb medical record system at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where we can all communicate with each other through a number of methods. Let’s start our discussion by reviewing an index patient that we see in our practice who has been treated with either radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. One question to address is: Is there a point when the Urology or Radiation Oncology service can transition the patient’s entire care back to the primary care team? And if so, what would be the optimal way to accomplish this?

Nick, is there some point at which you discharge the patient from the radiation oncology service and give specific directions to primary care, or is it primarily just back to urology in your case?

Nicholas G. Nickols, MD, PhD. I have not discharged any patient from my clinic after definitive prostate cancer treatment. During treatment, patients are seen every week. Subsequently, I see them 6 weeks posttreatment, and then every 4 months for the first year, then every 6 months for the next 4 years, and then yearly after that. Although I never formally discharged a patient from my clinic, you can see based on the frequency of visits, that the patient will see more often than their primary care provider (PCP) toward the beginning. And then, after some years, the patient sees their primary more than they me. So it’s not an immediate hand off but rather a gradual transition. It’s important that the PCP is aware of what to look for especially for the late recurrences, late potential side effects, probably more significantly than the early side effects, how to manage them when appropriate, and when to ask the patient to see our team more frequently in follow-up.

William Aronson. We have a number of patients who travel tremendous distances to see us, and I tend to think that many of our follow-up patients, once things are stabilized with regards to management of their side effects, really could see their primary care doctors if we can give them specific instructions on, for example, when to get a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and when to refer back to us.

Alison, can you think of some specific cases where you feel like we’ve successfully done that?

Alison Neymark, MS. For the most part we haven’t discharged people, either. What we have done is transitioned them over to a phone clinic. In our department, we have 4 nurse practitioners (NPs) who each have a half-day of phone clinic where they call patients with their test results. Some of those patients are prostate cancer patients that we have been following for years. We schedule them for a phone call, whether it’s every 3 months, every 6 months or every year, to review the updated PSA level and to just check in with them by phone. It’s a win-win because it’s a really quick phone call to reassure the veteran that the PSA level is being followed, and it frees up an in-person appointment slot for another veteran.

We still have patients that prefer face-to-face visits, even though they know we’re not doing anything except discussing a PSA level with them—they just want that security of seeing our face. Some patients are very nervous, and they don’t necessarily want to be discharged, so to speak, back to primary care. Also, for those patients that travel a long distance to clinic, we offer an appointment in the video chat clinic, with the community-based outpatient clinics in Bakersfield and Santa Maria, California.

PSA Levels

William Aronson. I probably see a patient about every 4 to 6 weeks who has a low PSA after about 10 years and has a long distance to travel and mobility and other problems that make it difficult to come in. 

The challenge that I have is, what is that specific guideline to give with regards to the rise in PSA? I think it all depends on the patients prostate cancer clinical features and comorbidities.

Nicholas Nickols. If a patient has been seen by me in follow-up a number of times and there’s really no active issues and there’s a low suspicion of recurrence, then I offer the patient the option of a phone follow-up as an alternative to face to face. Some of them accept that, but I ask that they agree to also see either urology or their PCP face to face. I will also remotely ensure that they’re getting the right laboratory tests, and if not, I’ll put those orders in.

With regard to when to refer a patient back for a suspected recurrence after definitive radiation therapy, there is an accepted definition of biochemical failure called the Phoenix definition, which is an absolute rise in 2 ng/mL of PSA over their posttreatment nadir. Often the posttreatment nadir, especially if they were on hormone therapy, will be close to 0. If the PSA gets to 2, that is a good trigger for a referral back to me and/or urology to discuss restaging and workup for a suspected recurrence.

For patients that are postsurgery and then subsequently get salvage radiation, it is not as clear when a restaging workup should be initiated. Currently, the imaging that is routine care is not very sensitive for detecting PSA in that setting until the PSA is around 0.8 ng/mL, and that’s with the most modern imaging available. Over time that may improve.

William Aronson. The other index patient to think about would be the patient who is on watchful waiting for their prostate cancer, which is to be distinguished from active surveillance. If someone’s on active surveillance, we’re regularly doing prostate biopsies and doing very close monitoring; but we also have patients who have multiple other medical problems, have a limited life expectancy, don’t have aggressive prostate cancer, and it’s extremely reasonable not to do a biopsy in those patients.

Again, those are patients where we do follow the PSA generally every 6 months. And I think there’s also scenarios there where it’s reasonable to refer back to primary care with specific instructions. These, again, are patients who had difficulty getting in to see us or have mobility issues, but it is also a way to limit patient visits if that’s their desire.

Peter Glassman, MBBS, MSc: I’m trained as both a general internist and board certified in hospice and palliative medicine. I currently provide primary care as well as palliative care. I view prostate cancer from the diagnosis through the treatment spectrum as a continuum. It starts with the PCP with an elevated PSA level or if the digital rectal exam has an abnormality, and then the role of the genitourinary (GU) practitioner becomes more significant during the active treatment and diagnostic phases.

Primary care doesn’t disappear, and I think there are 2 major issues that go along with that. First of all, we in primary care, because we take care of patients that often have other comorbidities, need to work with the patient on those comorbidities. Secondly, we need the information shared between the GU and primary care providers so that we can answer questions from our patients and have an understanding of what they’re going through and when.

As time goes on, we go through various phases: We may reach a cure, a quiescent period, active therapy, watchful waiting, or recurrence. Primary care gets involved as time goes on when the disease either becomes quiescent, is just being followed, or is considered cured. Clearly when you have watchful waiting, active treatment, or are in a recurrence, then GU takes the forefront.

I view it as a wave function. Primary care to GU with primary in smaller letters and then primary, if you will, in larger letters, GU becomes a lesser participant unless there is active therapy, watchful waiting or recurrence.

In doing a little bit of research, I found 2 very good and very helpful documents. One is the American Cancer Society (ACS) prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines (Box). And the other is a synopsis of the guidelines. What I liked was that the guidelines focused not only on what should be done for the initial period of prostate cancer, but also for many of the ancillary issues which we often don’t give voice to. The guidelines provide a structure, a foundation to work with our patients over time on their prostate cancer-related issues while, at the same time, being cognizant that we need to deal with their other comorbid conditions.

Modes of Communication

Alison Neymark. We find that including parameters for PSA monitoring in our Progress Notes in the electronic health record (EHR) the best way to communicate with other providers. We’ll say, “If PSA gets to this level, please refer back.” We try to make it clear because with the VA being a training facility, it could be a different resident/attending physician team that’s going to see the patient the next time he is in primary care.

Peter Glassman. Yes, we’re very lucky, as Bill talked about earlier and Alison just mentioned. We have the EHR, and Bill may remember this. Before the EHR, we were constantly fishing to find the most relevant notes. If a patient saw a GU practitioner the day before they saw me, I was often asking the patient what was said. Now we can just review the notes.

It’s a double-edged sword though because there are, of course, many notes in a medical record; and you have to look for the specific items. The EHR and documenting the medical record probably plays the primary role in getting information across. When you want to have an active handoff, or you need to communicate with each other, we have a variety of mechanisms, ranging from the phone to the Microsoft Skype Link (Redmond, WA) system that allows us to tap a message to a colleague.

And I’ve been here long enough that I’ve seen most permutations of how prostate cancer is diagnosed as well as shared among providers. Bill and I have shared patients. Alison and I have shared patients, not necessarily with prostate cancer, although that too. But we know how to communicate with each other. And of course, there’s paging if you need something more urgently.

William Aronson. We also use Microsoft Outlook e-mail, and encrypt the messages to keep them confidential and private. The other nice thing we have is there is a nationwide urology Outlook e-mail, so if any of us have any specific questions, through one e-mail we can send it around the country; and there’s usually multiple very useful responses. That’s another real strength of our system within the VA that helps patient care enormously.

Nicholas Nickols. Sometimes, if there’s a critical note that I absolutely want someone on the care team to read, I’ll add them as a cosigner; and that will pop up when they log in to the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) as something that they need to read.

If the patient lives particularly far or gets his care at another VA medical center and laboratory tests are needed, then I will reach out to their PCP via e-mail. If contact is not confirmed, I will reach out via phone or Skype.

Peter Glassman. The most helpful notes are those that are very specific as to what primary care is being asked to do and/or what urology is going to be doing. So, the more specific we get in the notes as to what is being addressed, I think that’s very helpful.

I have been here long enough that I’ve known both Alison and Bill; and if they have an issue, they will tap me a message. It wasn’t long ago that Bill sent a message to me, and we worked on a patient with prostate cancer who was going to be on long-term hormone therapy. We talked about osteoporosis management, and between us we worked out who was going to do what. Those are the kind of shared decision-making situations that are very, very helpful.
 

Alison Neymark. Also, GLAVAHCS has a home-based primary care team (HBPC), and a lot of the PCPs for that team are NPs. They know that they can contact me for their patients because a lot of those patients are on watchful waiting, and we do not necessarily need to see them face to face in clinic. Our urology team just needs to review updated lab results and how they are doing clinically. The HBPC NP who knows them best can contact me every 6 months or so, and we’ll discuss the case, which avoids making the patient come in, especially when they’re homebound. Those of us that have been working at the VA for many years have established good relationships. We feel very comfortable reaching out and talking to each other about these patients

Peter Glassman. Alison, I agree. When I can talk to my patients and say, “You know, we had that question about,” whatever the question might be, “and I contacted urology, and this is what they said.” It gives the patient confidence that we’re following up on the issues that they have and that we’re communicating with each other in a way that is to their benefit. And I think it’s very appreciated both by the provider as well as the patient.

William Aronson. Not infrequently I’ll have patients who have nonurologic issues, which I may first detect, or who have specific issues with their prostate cancer that can be comanaged. And I have found that when I send an encrypted e-mail to the PCP, it has been an extremely satisfying interaction; and we really get to the heart of the matter quickly for the sake of the veteran.

Veterans With Comorbidities

William Aronson. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a very significant and unique aspect of our patients, which is enormously important to recognize. For example, the side effects of prostate treatments can be very significant, whether radiation or surgery. Our patients understandably can be very fearful of the prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment side effects.

We know, for example, after a patient gets a diagnosis of prostate cancer, they’re at increased risk of cardiac death. That’s an especially important issue for our patients that there be an ongoing interaction between urology and primary care.

The ACS guidelines that Dr. Glassman referred to were enlightening. In many cases, primary care can look at the whole patient and their circumstances better than we can and may detect, for example, specific psychological issues that either they can manage or refer to other specialists.

Peter Glassman. One of the things that was highlighted in the ACS guideline is that in any population of men who have this disease, there’s going to be distress, anxiety, and full-fledged depression. Of course, there are psychosocial aspects of prostate cancer, such as sexual activity and intimacy with a partner that we often don’t explore but are probably playing an important role in the overall health of our patients. We need to be mindful of these psychosocial aspects and at least periodically ask them, “How are you doing with this? How are things at home?” And of course, we already use screeners for depression. As the article noted, distress and anxiety and other factors can make somebody’s life less optimal with poorer quality of life.

Dual Care Patients

Alison Neymark. Many patients whether they have Medicare, insurance through their spouse, or Kaiser Permanente through their job, choose to go to both places. The challenge is communicating with the non-VA providers because here at the VA we can communicate easily through Skype, Outlook e-mail, or CPRS, but for dual care patients who’s in charge? I encourage the veterans to choose whom they want to manage their care; we’re always here and happy to treat them, but they need to decide who’s in charge because I don’t want them to get into a situation where the differing opinions lead to a delay in care.

Nicholas Nickols. The communication when the patient is receiving care outside VA, either on a continuous basis or temporarily, is more of a challenge. We obviously can’t rely upon the messaging system, face-to-face contact is difficult, and they may not be able to use e-mail as well. So in those situations, usually a phone call is the best approach. I have found that the outside providers are happy to speak on the phone to coordinate care.

Peter Glassman. I agree, it does add a layer of complexity because we don’t readily have the notes, any information in front of us. That said, a lot of our patients can and do bring in information from outside specialists, and I’m hopeful that they share the information that we provide back to their outside doctors as well.

William Aronson. Some patient get nervous. They might decide they want care elsewhere, but they still want the VA available for them. I always let them know they should proceed in whatever way they prefer, but we’re always available and here for them. I try to empower them to make their own decisions and feel comfortable with them.

Nicholas Nickols. Notes from the outside, if they’re being referred for VA Choice or community care, do get uploaded into VistA Imaging and can be accessed, although it’s not instantaneous. Sometimes there’s a delay, but I have been able to access outside notes most of the time. If a patient goes through a clinic at the VA, the note is written in real time, and you can read it immediately.

Peter Glassman. That is true for patients that are within the VA system who receive contracted care either through Choice or through non-VA care that is contracted through VA. For somebody who is choosing to use 2 health care systems, that can provide more of a challenge because those notes don’t come to us. Over time, most of my patients have brought test results to me.

The thing with oncologic care, of course, is it’s a lot more complex. And it’s hard to know without reasonable documentation what’s been going on. At some level, you have to trust that the outside provider is doing whatever they need to do, or you have to take it upon yourself to do it within the system.

Alison Neymark. In my experience with the Choice Program, it really depends on the outside providers and how comfortable they are with the system that has been established to share records. Not all providers are going into that system and accessing it. I have had cases where I will see the non-VA provider’s note and it’ll say, “No documentation available for this consultation.” It just happens that they didn’t go into the system to review it. So it can be a challenge.

I’ve had good communication with the providers who use the system correctly. In some cases, just to make it easier, I will go ahead and communicate with them through encrypted e-mail, or I’ll talk to their care coordinators directly by phone. 

Peter Glassman. Many, if not most, PCPs are going to take care of these patients, certainly within the VA, with their GU colleagues. And most of us feel comfortable using the current documentation system in a way that allows us to share information or at least to gather information about these patients.

One of the things that I think came out for me in looking at this was that there are guidelines or there are ideas out there on how to take better care of these patients. And I for one learned a fair bit just by going through these documents, which I’m very appreciative of. But it does highlight to me that we can give good care and provide good shared care for prostate cancer survivors. I think that is something that perhaps this discussion will highlight that not only are people doing that, but there are resources they can utilize that will help them get a more comprehensive picture of taking care of prostate cancer survivors in the primary care clinic.

The beauty of the VA system as a system is that as these issues come up that might affect the overall health of the veteran with prostate cancer, for example, psychosocial issues, we have many people that can address this that are experts in their area. And one of the great beauties of having an all-encompassing healthcare system is being able to use resources within the system, whether that be for other medical problems or other social or other psychological issues, that we ourselves are not expert in. We can reach out to our other colleagues and ask them for assistance. We have that available to help the patients. It’s really holistic.

We even have integrated medicine where we can help patients, hopefully, get back into a healthy lifestyle, for example, whereas we may not have that expertise or knowledge. We often think of this as sort of a shared decision between GU and primary care. But, in fact, it’s really the responsibility of many, many people of the system at large. We are very lucky to have that.

The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference recorded in July 2018. The teleconference brought together health care providers from the Greater Los Angeles VA Health Care System (GLAVAHCS) to discuss the real-world processes for managing the treatment of patients with prostate cancer as they move between primary and specialist care.

William J. Aronson, MD. We are fortunate in having a superb medical record system at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where we can all communicate with each other through a number of methods. Let’s start our discussion by reviewing an index patient that we see in our practice who has been treated with either radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. One question to address is: Is there a point when the Urology or Radiation Oncology service can transition the patient’s entire care back to the primary care team? And if so, what would be the optimal way to accomplish this?

Nick, is there some point at which you discharge the patient from the radiation oncology service and give specific directions to primary care, or is it primarily just back to urology in your case?

Nicholas G. Nickols, MD, PhD. I have not discharged any patient from my clinic after definitive prostate cancer treatment. During treatment, patients are seen every week. Subsequently, I see them 6 weeks posttreatment, and then every 4 months for the first year, then every 6 months for the next 4 years, and then yearly after that. Although I never formally discharged a patient from my clinic, you can see based on the frequency of visits, that the patient will see more often than their primary care provider (PCP) toward the beginning. And then, after some years, the patient sees their primary more than they me. So it’s not an immediate hand off but rather a gradual transition. It’s important that the PCP is aware of what to look for especially for the late recurrences, late potential side effects, probably more significantly than the early side effects, how to manage them when appropriate, and when to ask the patient to see our team more frequently in follow-up.

William Aronson. We have a number of patients who travel tremendous distances to see us, and I tend to think that many of our follow-up patients, once things are stabilized with regards to management of their side effects, really could see their primary care doctors if we can give them specific instructions on, for example, when to get a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and when to refer back to us.

Alison, can you think of some specific cases where you feel like we’ve successfully done that?

Alison Neymark, MS. For the most part we haven’t discharged people, either. What we have done is transitioned them over to a phone clinic. In our department, we have 4 nurse practitioners (NPs) who each have a half-day of phone clinic where they call patients with their test results. Some of those patients are prostate cancer patients that we have been following for years. We schedule them for a phone call, whether it’s every 3 months, every 6 months or every year, to review the updated PSA level and to just check in with them by phone. It’s a win-win because it’s a really quick phone call to reassure the veteran that the PSA level is being followed, and it frees up an in-person appointment slot for another veteran.

We still have patients that prefer face-to-face visits, even though they know we’re not doing anything except discussing a PSA level with them—they just want that security of seeing our face. Some patients are very nervous, and they don’t necessarily want to be discharged, so to speak, back to primary care. Also, for those patients that travel a long distance to clinic, we offer an appointment in the video chat clinic, with the community-based outpatient clinics in Bakersfield and Santa Maria, California.

PSA Levels

William Aronson. I probably see a patient about every 4 to 6 weeks who has a low PSA after about 10 years and has a long distance to travel and mobility and other problems that make it difficult to come in. 

The challenge that I have is, what is that specific guideline to give with regards to the rise in PSA? I think it all depends on the patients prostate cancer clinical features and comorbidities.

Nicholas Nickols. If a patient has been seen by me in follow-up a number of times and there’s really no active issues and there’s a low suspicion of recurrence, then I offer the patient the option of a phone follow-up as an alternative to face to face. Some of them accept that, but I ask that they agree to also see either urology or their PCP face to face. I will also remotely ensure that they’re getting the right laboratory tests, and if not, I’ll put those orders in.

With regard to when to refer a patient back for a suspected recurrence after definitive radiation therapy, there is an accepted definition of biochemical failure called the Phoenix definition, which is an absolute rise in 2 ng/mL of PSA over their posttreatment nadir. Often the posttreatment nadir, especially if they were on hormone therapy, will be close to 0. If the PSA gets to 2, that is a good trigger for a referral back to me and/or urology to discuss restaging and workup for a suspected recurrence.

For patients that are postsurgery and then subsequently get salvage radiation, it is not as clear when a restaging workup should be initiated. Currently, the imaging that is routine care is not very sensitive for detecting PSA in that setting until the PSA is around 0.8 ng/mL, and that’s with the most modern imaging available. Over time that may improve.

William Aronson. The other index patient to think about would be the patient who is on watchful waiting for their prostate cancer, which is to be distinguished from active surveillance. If someone’s on active surveillance, we’re regularly doing prostate biopsies and doing very close monitoring; but we also have patients who have multiple other medical problems, have a limited life expectancy, don’t have aggressive prostate cancer, and it’s extremely reasonable not to do a biopsy in those patients.

Again, those are patients where we do follow the PSA generally every 6 months. And I think there’s also scenarios there where it’s reasonable to refer back to primary care with specific instructions. These, again, are patients who had difficulty getting in to see us or have mobility issues, but it is also a way to limit patient visits if that’s their desire.

Peter Glassman, MBBS, MSc: I’m trained as both a general internist and board certified in hospice and palliative medicine. I currently provide primary care as well as palliative care. I view prostate cancer from the diagnosis through the treatment spectrum as a continuum. It starts with the PCP with an elevated PSA level or if the digital rectal exam has an abnormality, and then the role of the genitourinary (GU) practitioner becomes more significant during the active treatment and diagnostic phases.

Primary care doesn’t disappear, and I think there are 2 major issues that go along with that. First of all, we in primary care, because we take care of patients that often have other comorbidities, need to work with the patient on those comorbidities. Secondly, we need the information shared between the GU and primary care providers so that we can answer questions from our patients and have an understanding of what they’re going through and when.

As time goes on, we go through various phases: We may reach a cure, a quiescent period, active therapy, watchful waiting, or recurrence. Primary care gets involved as time goes on when the disease either becomes quiescent, is just being followed, or is considered cured. Clearly when you have watchful waiting, active treatment, or are in a recurrence, then GU takes the forefront.

I view it as a wave function. Primary care to GU with primary in smaller letters and then primary, if you will, in larger letters, GU becomes a lesser participant unless there is active therapy, watchful waiting or recurrence.

In doing a little bit of research, I found 2 very good and very helpful documents. One is the American Cancer Society (ACS) prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines (Box). And the other is a synopsis of the guidelines. What I liked was that the guidelines focused not only on what should be done for the initial period of prostate cancer, but also for many of the ancillary issues which we often don’t give voice to. The guidelines provide a structure, a foundation to work with our patients over time on their prostate cancer-related issues while, at the same time, being cognizant that we need to deal with their other comorbid conditions.

Modes of Communication

Alison Neymark. We find that including parameters for PSA monitoring in our Progress Notes in the electronic health record (EHR) the best way to communicate with other providers. We’ll say, “If PSA gets to this level, please refer back.” We try to make it clear because with the VA being a training facility, it could be a different resident/attending physician team that’s going to see the patient the next time he is in primary care.

Peter Glassman. Yes, we’re very lucky, as Bill talked about earlier and Alison just mentioned. We have the EHR, and Bill may remember this. Before the EHR, we were constantly fishing to find the most relevant notes. If a patient saw a GU practitioner the day before they saw me, I was often asking the patient what was said. Now we can just review the notes.

It’s a double-edged sword though because there are, of course, many notes in a medical record; and you have to look for the specific items. The EHR and documenting the medical record probably plays the primary role in getting information across. When you want to have an active handoff, or you need to communicate with each other, we have a variety of mechanisms, ranging from the phone to the Microsoft Skype Link (Redmond, WA) system that allows us to tap a message to a colleague.

And I’ve been here long enough that I’ve seen most permutations of how prostate cancer is diagnosed as well as shared among providers. Bill and I have shared patients. Alison and I have shared patients, not necessarily with prostate cancer, although that too. But we know how to communicate with each other. And of course, there’s paging if you need something more urgently.

William Aronson. We also use Microsoft Outlook e-mail, and encrypt the messages to keep them confidential and private. The other nice thing we have is there is a nationwide urology Outlook e-mail, so if any of us have any specific questions, through one e-mail we can send it around the country; and there’s usually multiple very useful responses. That’s another real strength of our system within the VA that helps patient care enormously.

Nicholas Nickols. Sometimes, if there’s a critical note that I absolutely want someone on the care team to read, I’ll add them as a cosigner; and that will pop up when they log in to the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) as something that they need to read.

If the patient lives particularly far or gets his care at another VA medical center and laboratory tests are needed, then I will reach out to their PCP via e-mail. If contact is not confirmed, I will reach out via phone or Skype.

Peter Glassman. The most helpful notes are those that are very specific as to what primary care is being asked to do and/or what urology is going to be doing. So, the more specific we get in the notes as to what is being addressed, I think that’s very helpful.

I have been here long enough that I’ve known both Alison and Bill; and if they have an issue, they will tap me a message. It wasn’t long ago that Bill sent a message to me, and we worked on a patient with prostate cancer who was going to be on long-term hormone therapy. We talked about osteoporosis management, and between us we worked out who was going to do what. Those are the kind of shared decision-making situations that are very, very helpful.
 

Alison Neymark. Also, GLAVAHCS has a home-based primary care team (HBPC), and a lot of the PCPs for that team are NPs. They know that they can contact me for their patients because a lot of those patients are on watchful waiting, and we do not necessarily need to see them face to face in clinic. Our urology team just needs to review updated lab results and how they are doing clinically. The HBPC NP who knows them best can contact me every 6 months or so, and we’ll discuss the case, which avoids making the patient come in, especially when they’re homebound. Those of us that have been working at the VA for many years have established good relationships. We feel very comfortable reaching out and talking to each other about these patients

Peter Glassman. Alison, I agree. When I can talk to my patients and say, “You know, we had that question about,” whatever the question might be, “and I contacted urology, and this is what they said.” It gives the patient confidence that we’re following up on the issues that they have and that we’re communicating with each other in a way that is to their benefit. And I think it’s very appreciated both by the provider as well as the patient.

William Aronson. Not infrequently I’ll have patients who have nonurologic issues, which I may first detect, or who have specific issues with their prostate cancer that can be comanaged. And I have found that when I send an encrypted e-mail to the PCP, it has been an extremely satisfying interaction; and we really get to the heart of the matter quickly for the sake of the veteran.

Veterans With Comorbidities

William Aronson. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a very significant and unique aspect of our patients, which is enormously important to recognize. For example, the side effects of prostate treatments can be very significant, whether radiation or surgery. Our patients understandably can be very fearful of the prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment side effects.

We know, for example, after a patient gets a diagnosis of prostate cancer, they’re at increased risk of cardiac death. That’s an especially important issue for our patients that there be an ongoing interaction between urology and primary care.

The ACS guidelines that Dr. Glassman referred to were enlightening. In many cases, primary care can look at the whole patient and their circumstances better than we can and may detect, for example, specific psychological issues that either they can manage or refer to other specialists.

Peter Glassman. One of the things that was highlighted in the ACS guideline is that in any population of men who have this disease, there’s going to be distress, anxiety, and full-fledged depression. Of course, there are psychosocial aspects of prostate cancer, such as sexual activity and intimacy with a partner that we often don’t explore but are probably playing an important role in the overall health of our patients. We need to be mindful of these psychosocial aspects and at least periodically ask them, “How are you doing with this? How are things at home?” And of course, we already use screeners for depression. As the article noted, distress and anxiety and other factors can make somebody’s life less optimal with poorer quality of life.

Dual Care Patients

Alison Neymark. Many patients whether they have Medicare, insurance through their spouse, or Kaiser Permanente through their job, choose to go to both places. The challenge is communicating with the non-VA providers because here at the VA we can communicate easily through Skype, Outlook e-mail, or CPRS, but for dual care patients who’s in charge? I encourage the veterans to choose whom they want to manage their care; we’re always here and happy to treat them, but they need to decide who’s in charge because I don’t want them to get into a situation where the differing opinions lead to a delay in care.

Nicholas Nickols. The communication when the patient is receiving care outside VA, either on a continuous basis or temporarily, is more of a challenge. We obviously can’t rely upon the messaging system, face-to-face contact is difficult, and they may not be able to use e-mail as well. So in those situations, usually a phone call is the best approach. I have found that the outside providers are happy to speak on the phone to coordinate care.

Peter Glassman. I agree, it does add a layer of complexity because we don’t readily have the notes, any information in front of us. That said, a lot of our patients can and do bring in information from outside specialists, and I’m hopeful that they share the information that we provide back to their outside doctors as well.

William Aronson. Some patient get nervous. They might decide they want care elsewhere, but they still want the VA available for them. I always let them know they should proceed in whatever way they prefer, but we’re always available and here for them. I try to empower them to make their own decisions and feel comfortable with them.

Nicholas Nickols. Notes from the outside, if they’re being referred for VA Choice or community care, do get uploaded into VistA Imaging and can be accessed, although it’s not instantaneous. Sometimes there’s a delay, but I have been able to access outside notes most of the time. If a patient goes through a clinic at the VA, the note is written in real time, and you can read it immediately.

Peter Glassman. That is true for patients that are within the VA system who receive contracted care either through Choice or through non-VA care that is contracted through VA. For somebody who is choosing to use 2 health care systems, that can provide more of a challenge because those notes don’t come to us. Over time, most of my patients have brought test results to me.

The thing with oncologic care, of course, is it’s a lot more complex. And it’s hard to know without reasonable documentation what’s been going on. At some level, you have to trust that the outside provider is doing whatever they need to do, or you have to take it upon yourself to do it within the system.

Alison Neymark. In my experience with the Choice Program, it really depends on the outside providers and how comfortable they are with the system that has been established to share records. Not all providers are going into that system and accessing it. I have had cases where I will see the non-VA provider’s note and it’ll say, “No documentation available for this consultation.” It just happens that they didn’t go into the system to review it. So it can be a challenge.

I’ve had good communication with the providers who use the system correctly. In some cases, just to make it easier, I will go ahead and communicate with them through encrypted e-mail, or I’ll talk to their care coordinators directly by phone. 

Peter Glassman. Many, if not most, PCPs are going to take care of these patients, certainly within the VA, with their GU colleagues. And most of us feel comfortable using the current documentation system in a way that allows us to share information or at least to gather information about these patients.

One of the things that I think came out for me in looking at this was that there are guidelines or there are ideas out there on how to take better care of these patients. And I for one learned a fair bit just by going through these documents, which I’m very appreciative of. But it does highlight to me that we can give good care and provide good shared care for prostate cancer survivors. I think that is something that perhaps this discussion will highlight that not only are people doing that, but there are resources they can utilize that will help them get a more comprehensive picture of taking care of prostate cancer survivors in the primary care clinic.

The beauty of the VA system as a system is that as these issues come up that might affect the overall health of the veteran with prostate cancer, for example, psychosocial issues, we have many people that can address this that are experts in their area. And one of the great beauties of having an all-encompassing healthcare system is being able to use resources within the system, whether that be for other medical problems or other social or other psychological issues, that we ourselves are not expert in. We can reach out to our other colleagues and ask them for assistance. We have that available to help the patients. It’s really holistic.

We even have integrated medicine where we can help patients, hopefully, get back into a healthy lifestyle, for example, whereas we may not have that expertise or knowledge. We often think of this as sort of a shared decision between GU and primary care. But, in fact, it’s really the responsibility of many, many people of the system at large. We are very lucky to have that.

The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference recorded in July 2018. The teleconference brought together health care providers from the Greater Los Angeles VA Health Care System (GLAVAHCS) to discuss the real-world processes for managing the treatment of patients with prostate cancer as they move between primary and specialist care.

William J. Aronson, MD. We are fortunate in having a superb medical record system at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where we can all communicate with each other through a number of methods. Let’s start our discussion by reviewing an index patient that we see in our practice who has been treated with either radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. One question to address is: Is there a point when the Urology or Radiation Oncology service can transition the patient’s entire care back to the primary care team? And if so, what would be the optimal way to accomplish this?

Nick, is there some point at which you discharge the patient from the radiation oncology service and give specific directions to primary care, or is it primarily just back to urology in your case?

Nicholas G. Nickols, MD, PhD. I have not discharged any patient from my clinic after definitive prostate cancer treatment. During treatment, patients are seen every week. Subsequently, I see them 6 weeks posttreatment, and then every 4 months for the first year, then every 6 months for the next 4 years, and then yearly after that. Although I never formally discharged a patient from my clinic, you can see based on the frequency of visits, that the patient will see more often than their primary care provider (PCP) toward the beginning. And then, after some years, the patient sees their primary more than they me. So it’s not an immediate hand off but rather a gradual transition. It’s important that the PCP is aware of what to look for especially for the late recurrences, late potential side effects, probably more significantly than the early side effects, how to manage them when appropriate, and when to ask the patient to see our team more frequently in follow-up.

William Aronson. We have a number of patients who travel tremendous distances to see us, and I tend to think that many of our follow-up patients, once things are stabilized with regards to management of their side effects, really could see their primary care doctors if we can give them specific instructions on, for example, when to get a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and when to refer back to us.

Alison, can you think of some specific cases where you feel like we’ve successfully done that?

Alison Neymark, MS. For the most part we haven’t discharged people, either. What we have done is transitioned them over to a phone clinic. In our department, we have 4 nurse practitioners (NPs) who each have a half-day of phone clinic where they call patients with their test results. Some of those patients are prostate cancer patients that we have been following for years. We schedule them for a phone call, whether it’s every 3 months, every 6 months or every year, to review the updated PSA level and to just check in with them by phone. It’s a win-win because it’s a really quick phone call to reassure the veteran that the PSA level is being followed, and it frees up an in-person appointment slot for another veteran.

We still have patients that prefer face-to-face visits, even though they know we’re not doing anything except discussing a PSA level with them—they just want that security of seeing our face. Some patients are very nervous, and they don’t necessarily want to be discharged, so to speak, back to primary care. Also, for those patients that travel a long distance to clinic, we offer an appointment in the video chat clinic, with the community-based outpatient clinics in Bakersfield and Santa Maria, California.

PSA Levels

William Aronson. I probably see a patient about every 4 to 6 weeks who has a low PSA after about 10 years and has a long distance to travel and mobility and other problems that make it difficult to come in. 

The challenge that I have is, what is that specific guideline to give with regards to the rise in PSA? I think it all depends on the patients prostate cancer clinical features and comorbidities.

Nicholas Nickols. If a patient has been seen by me in follow-up a number of times and there’s really no active issues and there’s a low suspicion of recurrence, then I offer the patient the option of a phone follow-up as an alternative to face to face. Some of them accept that, but I ask that they agree to also see either urology or their PCP face to face. I will also remotely ensure that they’re getting the right laboratory tests, and if not, I’ll put those orders in.

With regard to when to refer a patient back for a suspected recurrence after definitive radiation therapy, there is an accepted definition of biochemical failure called the Phoenix definition, which is an absolute rise in 2 ng/mL of PSA over their posttreatment nadir. Often the posttreatment nadir, especially if they were on hormone therapy, will be close to 0. If the PSA gets to 2, that is a good trigger for a referral back to me and/or urology to discuss restaging and workup for a suspected recurrence.

For patients that are postsurgery and then subsequently get salvage radiation, it is not as clear when a restaging workup should be initiated. Currently, the imaging that is routine care is not very sensitive for detecting PSA in that setting until the PSA is around 0.8 ng/mL, and that’s with the most modern imaging available. Over time that may improve.

William Aronson. The other index patient to think about would be the patient who is on watchful waiting for their prostate cancer, which is to be distinguished from active surveillance. If someone’s on active surveillance, we’re regularly doing prostate biopsies and doing very close monitoring; but we also have patients who have multiple other medical problems, have a limited life expectancy, don’t have aggressive prostate cancer, and it’s extremely reasonable not to do a biopsy in those patients.

Again, those are patients where we do follow the PSA generally every 6 months. And I think there’s also scenarios there where it’s reasonable to refer back to primary care with specific instructions. These, again, are patients who had difficulty getting in to see us or have mobility issues, but it is also a way to limit patient visits if that’s their desire.

Peter Glassman, MBBS, MSc: I’m trained as both a general internist and board certified in hospice and palliative medicine. I currently provide primary care as well as palliative care. I view prostate cancer from the diagnosis through the treatment spectrum as a continuum. It starts with the PCP with an elevated PSA level or if the digital rectal exam has an abnormality, and then the role of the genitourinary (GU) practitioner becomes more significant during the active treatment and diagnostic phases.

Primary care doesn’t disappear, and I think there are 2 major issues that go along with that. First of all, we in primary care, because we take care of patients that often have other comorbidities, need to work with the patient on those comorbidities. Secondly, we need the information shared between the GU and primary care providers so that we can answer questions from our patients and have an understanding of what they’re going through and when.

As time goes on, we go through various phases: We may reach a cure, a quiescent period, active therapy, watchful waiting, or recurrence. Primary care gets involved as time goes on when the disease either becomes quiescent, is just being followed, or is considered cured. Clearly when you have watchful waiting, active treatment, or are in a recurrence, then GU takes the forefront.

I view it as a wave function. Primary care to GU with primary in smaller letters and then primary, if you will, in larger letters, GU becomes a lesser participant unless there is active therapy, watchful waiting or recurrence.

In doing a little bit of research, I found 2 very good and very helpful documents. One is the American Cancer Society (ACS) prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines (Box). And the other is a synopsis of the guidelines. What I liked was that the guidelines focused not only on what should be done for the initial period of prostate cancer, but also for many of the ancillary issues which we often don’t give voice to. The guidelines provide a structure, a foundation to work with our patients over time on their prostate cancer-related issues while, at the same time, being cognizant that we need to deal with their other comorbid conditions.

Modes of Communication

Alison Neymark. We find that including parameters for PSA monitoring in our Progress Notes in the electronic health record (EHR) the best way to communicate with other providers. We’ll say, “If PSA gets to this level, please refer back.” We try to make it clear because with the VA being a training facility, it could be a different resident/attending physician team that’s going to see the patient the next time he is in primary care.

Peter Glassman. Yes, we’re very lucky, as Bill talked about earlier and Alison just mentioned. We have the EHR, and Bill may remember this. Before the EHR, we were constantly fishing to find the most relevant notes. If a patient saw a GU practitioner the day before they saw me, I was often asking the patient what was said. Now we can just review the notes.

It’s a double-edged sword though because there are, of course, many notes in a medical record; and you have to look for the specific items. The EHR and documenting the medical record probably plays the primary role in getting information across. When you want to have an active handoff, or you need to communicate with each other, we have a variety of mechanisms, ranging from the phone to the Microsoft Skype Link (Redmond, WA) system that allows us to tap a message to a colleague.

And I’ve been here long enough that I’ve seen most permutations of how prostate cancer is diagnosed as well as shared among providers. Bill and I have shared patients. Alison and I have shared patients, not necessarily with prostate cancer, although that too. But we know how to communicate with each other. And of course, there’s paging if you need something more urgently.

William Aronson. We also use Microsoft Outlook e-mail, and encrypt the messages to keep them confidential and private. The other nice thing we have is there is a nationwide urology Outlook e-mail, so if any of us have any specific questions, through one e-mail we can send it around the country; and there’s usually multiple very useful responses. That’s another real strength of our system within the VA that helps patient care enormously.

Nicholas Nickols. Sometimes, if there’s a critical note that I absolutely want someone on the care team to read, I’ll add them as a cosigner; and that will pop up when they log in to the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) as something that they need to read.

If the patient lives particularly far or gets his care at another VA medical center and laboratory tests are needed, then I will reach out to their PCP via e-mail. If contact is not confirmed, I will reach out via phone or Skype.

Peter Glassman. The most helpful notes are those that are very specific as to what primary care is being asked to do and/or what urology is going to be doing. So, the more specific we get in the notes as to what is being addressed, I think that’s very helpful.

I have been here long enough that I’ve known both Alison and Bill; and if they have an issue, they will tap me a message. It wasn’t long ago that Bill sent a message to me, and we worked on a patient with prostate cancer who was going to be on long-term hormone therapy. We talked about osteoporosis management, and between us we worked out who was going to do what. Those are the kind of shared decision-making situations that are very, very helpful.
 

Alison Neymark. Also, GLAVAHCS has a home-based primary care team (HBPC), and a lot of the PCPs for that team are NPs. They know that they can contact me for their patients because a lot of those patients are on watchful waiting, and we do not necessarily need to see them face to face in clinic. Our urology team just needs to review updated lab results and how they are doing clinically. The HBPC NP who knows them best can contact me every 6 months or so, and we’ll discuss the case, which avoids making the patient come in, especially when they’re homebound. Those of us that have been working at the VA for many years have established good relationships. We feel very comfortable reaching out and talking to each other about these patients

Peter Glassman. Alison, I agree. When I can talk to my patients and say, “You know, we had that question about,” whatever the question might be, “and I contacted urology, and this is what they said.” It gives the patient confidence that we’re following up on the issues that they have and that we’re communicating with each other in a way that is to their benefit. And I think it’s very appreciated both by the provider as well as the patient.

William Aronson. Not infrequently I’ll have patients who have nonurologic issues, which I may first detect, or who have specific issues with their prostate cancer that can be comanaged. And I have found that when I send an encrypted e-mail to the PCP, it has been an extremely satisfying interaction; and we really get to the heart of the matter quickly for the sake of the veteran.

Veterans With Comorbidities

William Aronson. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a very significant and unique aspect of our patients, which is enormously important to recognize. For example, the side effects of prostate treatments can be very significant, whether radiation or surgery. Our patients understandably can be very fearful of the prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment side effects.

We know, for example, after a patient gets a diagnosis of prostate cancer, they’re at increased risk of cardiac death. That’s an especially important issue for our patients that there be an ongoing interaction between urology and primary care.

The ACS guidelines that Dr. Glassman referred to were enlightening. In many cases, primary care can look at the whole patient and their circumstances better than we can and may detect, for example, specific psychological issues that either they can manage or refer to other specialists.

Peter Glassman. One of the things that was highlighted in the ACS guideline is that in any population of men who have this disease, there’s going to be distress, anxiety, and full-fledged depression. Of course, there are psychosocial aspects of prostate cancer, such as sexual activity and intimacy with a partner that we often don’t explore but are probably playing an important role in the overall health of our patients. We need to be mindful of these psychosocial aspects and at least periodically ask them, “How are you doing with this? How are things at home?” And of course, we already use screeners for depression. As the article noted, distress and anxiety and other factors can make somebody’s life less optimal with poorer quality of life.

Dual Care Patients

Alison Neymark. Many patients whether they have Medicare, insurance through their spouse, or Kaiser Permanente through their job, choose to go to both places. The challenge is communicating with the non-VA providers because here at the VA we can communicate easily through Skype, Outlook e-mail, or CPRS, but for dual care patients who’s in charge? I encourage the veterans to choose whom they want to manage their care; we’re always here and happy to treat them, but they need to decide who’s in charge because I don’t want them to get into a situation where the differing opinions lead to a delay in care.

Nicholas Nickols. The communication when the patient is receiving care outside VA, either on a continuous basis or temporarily, is more of a challenge. We obviously can’t rely upon the messaging system, face-to-face contact is difficult, and they may not be able to use e-mail as well. So in those situations, usually a phone call is the best approach. I have found that the outside providers are happy to speak on the phone to coordinate care.

Peter Glassman. I agree, it does add a layer of complexity because we don’t readily have the notes, any information in front of us. That said, a lot of our patients can and do bring in information from outside specialists, and I’m hopeful that they share the information that we provide back to their outside doctors as well.

William Aronson. Some patient get nervous. They might decide they want care elsewhere, but they still want the VA available for them. I always let them know they should proceed in whatever way they prefer, but we’re always available and here for them. I try to empower them to make their own decisions and feel comfortable with them.

Nicholas Nickols. Notes from the outside, if they’re being referred for VA Choice or community care, do get uploaded into VistA Imaging and can be accessed, although it’s not instantaneous. Sometimes there’s a delay, but I have been able to access outside notes most of the time. If a patient goes through a clinic at the VA, the note is written in real time, and you can read it immediately.

Peter Glassman. That is true for patients that are within the VA system who receive contracted care either through Choice or through non-VA care that is contracted through VA. For somebody who is choosing to use 2 health care systems, that can provide more of a challenge because those notes don’t come to us. Over time, most of my patients have brought test results to me.

The thing with oncologic care, of course, is it’s a lot more complex. And it’s hard to know without reasonable documentation what’s been going on. At some level, you have to trust that the outside provider is doing whatever they need to do, or you have to take it upon yourself to do it within the system.

Alison Neymark. In my experience with the Choice Program, it really depends on the outside providers and how comfortable they are with the system that has been established to share records. Not all providers are going into that system and accessing it. I have had cases where I will see the non-VA provider’s note and it’ll say, “No documentation available for this consultation.” It just happens that they didn’t go into the system to review it. So it can be a challenge.

I’ve had good communication with the providers who use the system correctly. In some cases, just to make it easier, I will go ahead and communicate with them through encrypted e-mail, or I’ll talk to their care coordinators directly by phone. 

Peter Glassman. Many, if not most, PCPs are going to take care of these patients, certainly within the VA, with their GU colleagues. And most of us feel comfortable using the current documentation system in a way that allows us to share information or at least to gather information about these patients.

One of the things that I think came out for me in looking at this was that there are guidelines or there are ideas out there on how to take better care of these patients. And I for one learned a fair bit just by going through these documents, which I’m very appreciative of. But it does highlight to me that we can give good care and provide good shared care for prostate cancer survivors. I think that is something that perhaps this discussion will highlight that not only are people doing that, but there are resources they can utilize that will help them get a more comprehensive picture of taking care of prostate cancer survivors in the primary care clinic.

The beauty of the VA system as a system is that as these issues come up that might affect the overall health of the veteran with prostate cancer, for example, psychosocial issues, we have many people that can address this that are experts in their area. And one of the great beauties of having an all-encompassing healthcare system is being able to use resources within the system, whether that be for other medical problems or other social or other psychological issues, that we ourselves are not expert in. We can reach out to our other colleagues and ask them for assistance. We have that available to help the patients. It’s really holistic.

We even have integrated medicine where we can help patients, hopefully, get back into a healthy lifestyle, for example, whereas we may not have that expertise or knowledge. We often think of this as sort of a shared decision between GU and primary care. But, in fact, it’s really the responsibility of many, many people of the system at large. We are very lucky to have that.

Showing cancer patients receiving chemotherapy short videos about their treatments has the potential to improve their understanding about the treatments they are receiving, new research in Cancer has shown.

Researchers showed 50 patients at an underserved hospital six 1-minute videos focused on important terms related to their chemotherapy treatments and found that the videos helped them better understand what those key terms mean. Before viewing the videos, 15 of 20 terms were misunderstood by more than one third of patients, with 98% unable to define “maintenance,” 74% unable to define “cancer,” and 58% unable to define “chemotherapy.” Six pilot educational videos describing a narrowed down list of six terms were created, and patient understanding of all six terms improved by at least 20% after watching the videos. The six terms defined in the videos were “palliative chemotherapy,” “curative,” “cancer,” “blood count,” “risk of infection,” and “chemotherapy.”

“Although a current concern is that precision medicines will not be understood due to genetic illiteracy and misunderstandings about the immune system, it is important to remember that the terminology used to describe chemotherapy, the backbone of many cancer treatments, may also be incomprehensible to some patients,” Rebecca Pentz, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues wrote.

“Our video pilot suggests that multimedia can help patients understand chemotherapy terminology,” Dr. Pentz and colleagues said. “For each term, there was at least a 20% increase in patient understanding after watching the video. None of the patients could define palliative chemotherapy before watching the video, but 72% were able to provide a definition afterward.”

Researchers noted that the term most understood after the video was curative treatment (patients being able to define the phrase grew from 34% to 88%).

“Our study establishes that basic chemotherapy terminology is widely misunderstood by an underserved population, but that video-based education can significantly increase patient understanding,” the investigators concluded, but noted the research was limited by the small number of videos as well as the single underserved hospital, which may limit the generalizablility of the study.

Dr. Pentz and colleagues added that “education of physicians about the severe patient lack of understanding of basic cancer terminology and methods to improve understanding would be most helpful.”

SOURCE: Pentz R et al. Cancer. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32421.

Showing cancer patients receiving chemotherapy short videos about their treatments has the potential to improve their understanding about the treatments they are receiving, new research in Cancer has shown.

Researchers showed 50 patients at an underserved hospital six 1-minute videos focused on important terms related to their chemotherapy treatments and found that the videos helped them better understand what those key terms mean. Before viewing the videos, 15 of 20 terms were misunderstood by more than one third of patients, with 98% unable to define “maintenance,” 74% unable to define “cancer,” and 58% unable to define “chemotherapy.” Six pilot educational videos describing a narrowed down list of six terms were created, and patient understanding of all six terms improved by at least 20% after watching the videos. The six terms defined in the videos were “palliative chemotherapy,” “curative,” “cancer,” “blood count,” “risk of infection,” and “chemotherapy.”

“Although a current concern is that precision medicines will not be understood due to genetic illiteracy and misunderstandings about the immune system, it is important to remember that the terminology used to describe chemotherapy, the backbone of many cancer treatments, may also be incomprehensible to some patients,” Rebecca Pentz, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues wrote.

“Our video pilot suggests that multimedia can help patients understand chemotherapy terminology,” Dr. Pentz and colleagues said. “For each term, there was at least a 20% increase in patient understanding after watching the video. None of the patients could define palliative chemotherapy before watching the video, but 72% were able to provide a definition afterward.”

Researchers noted that the term most understood after the video was curative treatment (patients being able to define the phrase grew from 34% to 88%).

“Our study establishes that basic chemotherapy terminology is widely misunderstood by an underserved population, but that video-based education can significantly increase patient understanding,” the investigators concluded, but noted the research was limited by the small number of videos as well as the single underserved hospital, which may limit the generalizablility of the study.

Dr. Pentz and colleagues added that “education of physicians about the severe patient lack of understanding of basic cancer terminology and methods to improve understanding would be most helpful.”

SOURCE: Pentz R et al. Cancer. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32421.

Showing cancer patients receiving chemotherapy short videos about their treatments has the potential to improve their understanding about the treatments they are receiving, new research in Cancer has shown.

Researchers showed 50 patients at an underserved hospital six 1-minute videos focused on important terms related to their chemotherapy treatments and found that the videos helped them better understand what those key terms mean. Before viewing the videos, 15 of 20 terms were misunderstood by more than one third of patients, with 98% unable to define “maintenance,” 74% unable to define “cancer,” and 58% unable to define “chemotherapy.” Six pilot educational videos describing a narrowed down list of six terms were created, and patient understanding of all six terms improved by at least 20% after watching the videos. The six terms defined in the videos were “palliative chemotherapy,” “curative,” “cancer,” “blood count,” “risk of infection,” and “chemotherapy.”

“Although a current concern is that precision medicines will not be understood due to genetic illiteracy and misunderstandings about the immune system, it is important to remember that the terminology used to describe chemotherapy, the backbone of many cancer treatments, may also be incomprehensible to some patients,” Rebecca Pentz, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues wrote.

“Our video pilot suggests that multimedia can help patients understand chemotherapy terminology,” Dr. Pentz and colleagues said. “For each term, there was at least a 20% increase in patient understanding after watching the video. None of the patients could define palliative chemotherapy before watching the video, but 72% were able to provide a definition afterward.”

Researchers noted that the term most understood after the video was curative treatment (patients being able to define the phrase grew from 34% to 88%).

“Our study establishes that basic chemotherapy terminology is widely misunderstood by an underserved population, but that video-based education can significantly increase patient understanding,” the investigators concluded, but noted the research was limited by the small number of videos as well as the single underserved hospital, which may limit the generalizablility of the study.

Dr. Pentz and colleagues added that “education of physicians about the severe patient lack of understanding of basic cancer terminology and methods to improve understanding would be most helpful.”

SOURCE: Pentz R et al. Cancer. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32421.

When it comes to treatment recommendations for high-risk breast cancer, oncologists agree with a leading artificial intelligence platform about half the time, according to investigators.

In the first study of its kind, involving 10 Chinese oncologists, recommendation concordance with the Watson for Oncology treatment advisory tool (WfO) was generally lower for hormone receptor–positive and metastatic cancers than hormone receptor–negative and nonmetastatic cases, reported Fengrui Xu, MD, of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, and colleagues. Refinement could enable broad use of Watson, not to dictate treatment decisions, but instead to propose alternate treatment approaches and offer point-of-care access to relevant evidence.

“[WfO] is an example of a quantitative oncology clinical decision support that leverages the clinical expertise of oncologists at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC],” the investigators wrote in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. The platform uses machine-learning software to interpret patient scenarios in light from MSKCC training cases, MSKCC treatment guidelines, and more than 300 medical textbooks and journals.

To compare WfO with real-world decision makers, the investigators recruited three chief physicians, four attending physicians, and three fellows to provide treatment recommendations for 1,977 patients with complex breast cancer who were treated at 10 hospitals in China. Participating physicians shared the workload; each evaluated an average of 198 different cases.

On average, oncologists and WfO made the same treatment recommendations 56% of the time. Out of the different types of physicians, fellows were most likely to agree with WfO, based on a 68% concordance rate, compared with 54% for chief physicians and 49% for attending physicians. Including all physicians, concordance was lowest for hormone receptor–positive/HER2-positive disease (48%) and highest for triple-negative cases (71%). Adjuvant and metastatic therapies were also evaluated, with high concordance for adjuvant endocrine (78%) and targeted therapy (100%), compared with moderate concordance for first- (52%) and second-line metastatic therapy (50%). The investigators described concordance results as generally “modest;” however, they noted that such levels are promising.

“This degree of concordance is encouraging because therapeutic decisions in these cases are often difficult as a result of the current limits of medical knowledge for treating complex breast cancers and the presence of local contextual factors that affect physician treatment choices,” the investigators wrote. “It is important to note that nonconcordance does not imply that one treatment is correct for a given patient and another is not, nor does it necessarily diminish the potential value of a decision support system that provides access to supporting evidence and insight into its reasoning process.”

The study was funded by Zefei Jiang. The investigators reported affiliations with IBM Watson Health, Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Institution, Merck, and others.

SOURCE: Xu F et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00159.

When it comes to treatment recommendations for high-risk breast cancer, oncologists agree with a leading artificial intelligence platform about half the time, according to investigators.

In the first study of its kind, involving 10 Chinese oncologists, recommendation concordance with the Watson for Oncology treatment advisory tool (WfO) was generally lower for hormone receptor–positive and metastatic cancers than hormone receptor–negative and nonmetastatic cases, reported Fengrui Xu, MD, of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, and colleagues. Refinement could enable broad use of Watson, not to dictate treatment decisions, but instead to propose alternate treatment approaches and offer point-of-care access to relevant evidence.

“[WfO] is an example of a quantitative oncology clinical decision support that leverages the clinical expertise of oncologists at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC],” the investigators wrote in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. The platform uses machine-learning software to interpret patient scenarios in light from MSKCC training cases, MSKCC treatment guidelines, and more than 300 medical textbooks and journals.

To compare WfO with real-world decision makers, the investigators recruited three chief physicians, four attending physicians, and three fellows to provide treatment recommendations for 1,977 patients with complex breast cancer who were treated at 10 hospitals in China. Participating physicians shared the workload; each evaluated an average of 198 different cases.

On average, oncologists and WfO made the same treatment recommendations 56% of the time. Out of the different types of physicians, fellows were most likely to agree with WfO, based on a 68% concordance rate, compared with 54% for chief physicians and 49% for attending physicians. Including all physicians, concordance was lowest for hormone receptor–positive/HER2-positive disease (48%) and highest for triple-negative cases (71%). Adjuvant and metastatic therapies were also evaluated, with high concordance for adjuvant endocrine (78%) and targeted therapy (100%), compared with moderate concordance for first- (52%) and second-line metastatic therapy (50%). The investigators described concordance results as generally “modest;” however, they noted that such levels are promising.

“This degree of concordance is encouraging because therapeutic decisions in these cases are often difficult as a result of the current limits of medical knowledge for treating complex breast cancers and the presence of local contextual factors that affect physician treatment choices,” the investigators wrote. “It is important to note that nonconcordance does not imply that one treatment is correct for a given patient and another is not, nor does it necessarily diminish the potential value of a decision support system that provides access to supporting evidence and insight into its reasoning process.”

The study was funded by Zefei Jiang. The investigators reported affiliations with IBM Watson Health, Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Institution, Merck, and others.

SOURCE: Xu F et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00159.

When it comes to treatment recommendations for high-risk breast cancer, oncologists agree with a leading artificial intelligence platform about half the time, according to investigators.

In the first study of its kind, involving 10 Chinese oncologists, recommendation concordance with the Watson for Oncology treatment advisory tool (WfO) was generally lower for hormone receptor–positive and metastatic cancers than hormone receptor–negative and nonmetastatic cases, reported Fengrui Xu, MD, of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, and colleagues. Refinement could enable broad use of Watson, not to dictate treatment decisions, but instead to propose alternate treatment approaches and offer point-of-care access to relevant evidence.

“[WfO] is an example of a quantitative oncology clinical decision support that leverages the clinical expertise of oncologists at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC],” the investigators wrote in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. The platform uses machine-learning software to interpret patient scenarios in light from MSKCC training cases, MSKCC treatment guidelines, and more than 300 medical textbooks and journals.

To compare WfO with real-world decision makers, the investigators recruited three chief physicians, four attending physicians, and three fellows to provide treatment recommendations for 1,977 patients with complex breast cancer who were treated at 10 hospitals in China. Participating physicians shared the workload; each evaluated an average of 198 different cases.

On average, oncologists and WfO made the same treatment recommendations 56% of the time. Out of the different types of physicians, fellows were most likely to agree with WfO, based on a 68% concordance rate, compared with 54% for chief physicians and 49% for attending physicians. Including all physicians, concordance was lowest for hormone receptor–positive/HER2-positive disease (48%) and highest for triple-negative cases (71%). Adjuvant and metastatic therapies were also evaluated, with high concordance for adjuvant endocrine (78%) and targeted therapy (100%), compared with moderate concordance for first- (52%) and second-line metastatic therapy (50%). The investigators described concordance results as generally “modest;” however, they noted that such levels are promising.

“This degree of concordance is encouraging because therapeutic decisions in these cases are often difficult as a result of the current limits of medical knowledge for treating complex breast cancers and the presence of local contextual factors that affect physician treatment choices,” the investigators wrote. “It is important to note that nonconcordance does not imply that one treatment is correct for a given patient and another is not, nor does it necessarily diminish the potential value of a decision support system that provides access to supporting evidence and insight into its reasoning process.”

The study was funded by Zefei Jiang. The investigators reported affiliations with IBM Watson Health, Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Institution, Merck, and others.

SOURCE: Xu F et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1200/CCI.18.00159.

Long-term survivors of cancer have more age-related functional deficits than do those who have not experienced cancer, and these deficits – as well as their cancer history – are both associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, a study has found.

A paper published in Cancer reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,723 female cancer survivors and 11,145 cancer-free women enrolled in the Iowa Women’s Health Study, who were followed for 10 years.

The analysis revealed that women with a history of cancer had significantly more deficits on a geriatric assessment compared with their age-matched controls without a history of cancer. While 66% of women without a cancer history had one or more deficits, 70% of those with a history had at least one age-related deficit, and they were significantly more likely to have two or more deficits.

Cancer survivors were significantly more likely to have two or more physical function limitations than were those without a history of cancer (42.4% vs. 36.9%, P less than .0001), to have two or more comorbidities (41.3% vs. 38.2%, P = .02) and to have poor general health (23.3% vs. 17.4%, P less than .0001). They were also significantly less likely to be underweight.

The study found that both cancer history and age-related functional deficits were predictors of mortality, even after adjustment for confounders such as chronological age, smoking, and physical activity levels. The highest mortality risk was seen in cancer survivors with two or more age-related health deficits, who had a twofold greater mortality risk compared with the noncancer controls with fewer than two health deficits.

Even individuals with a history of cancer but without any health deficits still had a 1.3-1.4-fold increased risk of mortality compared with individuals without a history of cancer and without health deficits.

“These results confirm the increased risk of mortality associated with GA domain deficits and extend the research by demonstrating that a cancer history is associated with an older functional age compared with aged-matched cancer-free individuals,” wrote Cindy K. Blair, PhD, of the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and coauthors.

They noted that the study included very long-term cancer survivors who had survived for an average of 11 years before they underwent the geriatric assessment and were then followed for 10 years after that point.

“Further research is needed to identify older cancer survivors who are at risk of accelerated aging,” the authors wrote. “Interventions that target physical function, comorbidity, nutritional status, and general health are greatly needed to improve or maintain the quality of survivorship in older cancer survivors.”

The National Cancer Institute, the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, and the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center supported the study. Two authors declared grants from the National Institutes of Health related to the study.

SOURCE: Blair C et al. Cancer 2019, Aug 16. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32449.

Long-term survivors of cancer have more age-related functional deficits than do those who have not experienced cancer, and these deficits – as well as their cancer history – are both associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, a study has found.

A paper published in Cancer reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,723 female cancer survivors and 11,145 cancer-free women enrolled in the Iowa Women’s Health Study, who were followed for 10 years.

The analysis revealed that women with a history of cancer had significantly more deficits on a geriatric assessment compared with their age-matched controls without a history of cancer. While 66% of women without a cancer history had one or more deficits, 70% of those with a history had at least one age-related deficit, and they were significantly more likely to have two or more deficits.

Cancer survivors were significantly more likely to have two or more physical function limitations than were those without a history of cancer (42.4% vs. 36.9%, P less than .0001), to have two or more comorbidities (41.3% vs. 38.2%, P = .02) and to have poor general health (23.3% vs. 17.4%, P less than .0001). They were also significantly less likely to be underweight.

The study found that both cancer history and age-related functional deficits were predictors of mortality, even after adjustment for confounders such as chronological age, smoking, and physical activity levels. The highest mortality risk was seen in cancer survivors with two or more age-related health deficits, who had a twofold greater mortality risk compared with the noncancer controls with fewer than two health deficits.

Even individuals with a history of cancer but without any health deficits still had a 1.3-1.4-fold increased risk of mortality compared with individuals without a history of cancer and without health deficits.

“These results confirm the increased risk of mortality associated with GA domain deficits and extend the research by demonstrating that a cancer history is associated with an older functional age compared with aged-matched cancer-free individuals,” wrote Cindy K. Blair, PhD, of the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and coauthors.

They noted that the study included very long-term cancer survivors who had survived for an average of 11 years before they underwent the geriatric assessment and were then followed for 10 years after that point.

“Further research is needed to identify older cancer survivors who are at risk of accelerated aging,” the authors wrote. “Interventions that target physical function, comorbidity, nutritional status, and general health are greatly needed to improve or maintain the quality of survivorship in older cancer survivors.”

The National Cancer Institute, the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, and the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center supported the study. Two authors declared grants from the National Institutes of Health related to the study.

SOURCE: Blair C et al. Cancer 2019, Aug 16. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32449.

Long-term survivors of cancer have more age-related functional deficits than do those who have not experienced cancer, and these deficits – as well as their cancer history – are both associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, a study has found.

A paper published in Cancer reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,723 female cancer survivors and 11,145 cancer-free women enrolled in the Iowa Women’s Health Study, who were followed for 10 years.

The analysis revealed that women with a history of cancer had significantly more deficits on a geriatric assessment compared with their age-matched controls without a history of cancer. While 66% of women without a cancer history had one or more deficits, 70% of those with a history had at least one age-related deficit, and they were significantly more likely to have two or more deficits.

Cancer survivors were significantly more likely to have two or more physical function limitations than were those without a history of cancer (42.4% vs. 36.9%, P less than .0001), to have two or more comorbidities (41.3% vs. 38.2%, P = .02) and to have poor general health (23.3% vs. 17.4%, P less than .0001). They were also significantly less likely to be underweight.

The study found that both cancer history and age-related functional deficits were predictors of mortality, even after adjustment for confounders such as chronological age, smoking, and physical activity levels. The highest mortality risk was seen in cancer survivors with two or more age-related health deficits, who had a twofold greater mortality risk compared with the noncancer controls with fewer than two health deficits.

Even individuals with a history of cancer but without any health deficits still had a 1.3-1.4-fold increased risk of mortality compared with individuals without a history of cancer and without health deficits.

“These results confirm the increased risk of mortality associated with GA domain deficits and extend the research by demonstrating that a cancer history is associated with an older functional age compared with aged-matched cancer-free individuals,” wrote Cindy K. Blair, PhD, of the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and coauthors.

They noted that the study included very long-term cancer survivors who had survived for an average of 11 years before they underwent the geriatric assessment and were then followed for 10 years after that point.

“Further research is needed to identify older cancer survivors who are at risk of accelerated aging,” the authors wrote. “Interventions that target physical function, comorbidity, nutritional status, and general health are greatly needed to improve or maintain the quality of survivorship in older cancer survivors.”

The National Cancer Institute, the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, and the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center supported the study. Two authors declared grants from the National Institutes of Health related to the study.

SOURCE: Blair C et al. Cancer 2019, Aug 16. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32449.

For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.

Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.

Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.

These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.

Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.

The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.

Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.

For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.

By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.

For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).

These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.

“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.

Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.

For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.

Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.

Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.

These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.

Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.

The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.

Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.

For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.

By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.

For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).

These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.

“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.

Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.

For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.

Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.

Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.

These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.

Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.

The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.

Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.

Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.

For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.

By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.

For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).

These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.

“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.

Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.