Search

Abstract Background To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a 6-month tailored non-linear progressive physical activity intervention (PAI) for lymphoma patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods Patients newly diagnosed with lymphoma (non-Hodgkin (NHL) or Hodgkin (HL)) were randomized into the PAI or healthy living intervention (HLI) control (2:1). Feasibility was assessed by examining accrual, adherence, and retention rates. Participants completed assessments of exercise capacity (VO2 peak and 6-min walk distance (6MWD)), objective and self-reported levels of physical activity, MRI-derived cardiovascular functioning (Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction [LVEF], stroke volume, and cardiac output), and self-reported health-related and disease-specific quality of life and self-efficacy for exercise at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Results One hundred and forty-five individuals were screened with 23 of 84 eligible patients agreeing to participate (27%). Three participants withdrew before baseline testing. Out of the 20 participants randomized to the PAI (n = 13) and HLI groups (n = 7), 18 completed the intervention resulting in an overall retention rate of 78%. The adherence rates to the PAI and HLI were 85% and 87%, respectively. One non-serious adverse event was registered. VO2 peak ranged from 15.5–28.0 ml/kg/min at baseline and participants in both groups improved by 6 months. Physical activity levels and cardiovascular function were reduced prior to treatment but did not deteriorate further. Conclusions Implementing a tailored PAI in adults with lymphoma during active treatment is feasible, was well received by participants and shows preliminary efficacy for limiting a decline in function during treatment. Potential Implications for Cancer Survivors: Physical activity may be beneficial for improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Trial registration #NCT01719562 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered July 2, 2019—retrospectively registered.

Summary: Early phase clinical trials provide an initial evaluation of therapies’ risks and benefits to patients, including safety and tolerability, which typically relies on reporting outcomes by investigator and laboratory assessments. Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform risks (tolerability) and benefits (improvement in disease symptoms) is more common in later than early phase trials. We convened a two-day expert roundtable covering: (1) the necessity and feasibility of a universal PRO core conceptual model for early phase trials; (2) the practical integration of PROs in early phase trials to inform tolerability assessment, guide dose decisions, or as real-time safety alerts to enhance investigator-reported adverse events. Participants (n = 22) included: patient advocates, regulators, clinicians, statisticians, pharmaceutical representatives, and PRO methodologists working across diverse clinical areas. In this manuscript, we report major recommendations resulting from the roundtable discussions corresponding to each theme. Additionally, we highlight priority areas necessitating further investigation.

Abstract Background As the combination of systemic and targeted chemotherapies is associated with severe adverse side effects and long-term health complications, there is interest in reducing treatment intensity for patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Clinical trials are needed to determine the feasibility of reducing treatment intensity while maintaining 3-year recurrence-free survival of greater than 92%. To recruit participants for these trials, it is important to understand patient perspectives on reducing chemotherapy. Methods We collected qualitative interview data from twenty-four patients with Stage II-III breast cancer and sixteen patient advocates. Interviews explored potential barriers and facilitators to participation in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy. As the COVID-19 pandemic struck during data collection, seventeen participants were asked about the potential impact of COVID-19 on their interest in these trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and researchers used qualitative content analysis to code for dominant themes. Results Seventeen participants (42.5%) expressed interest in participating in a trial of reduced chemotherapy. Barriers to reducing chemotherapy included (1) fear of recurrence and inefficacy, (2) preference for aggressive treatment, (3) disinterest in clinical trials, (4) lack of information about expected outcomes, (5) fear of regret, and (6) having young children. Facilitators included (1) avoiding physical toxicity, (2) understanding the scientific rationale of reducing chemotherapy, (3) confidence in providers, (4) consistent monitoring and the option to increase dosage, (5) fewer financial and logistical challenges, and (6) contributing to scientific knowledge. Of those asked, nearly all participants said they would be more motivated to reduce treatment intensity in the context of COVID-19, primarily to avoid exposure to the virus while receiving treatment. Conclusions Among individuals with EBC, there is significant interest in alleviating treatment-related toxicity by reducing chemotherapeutic intensity. Patients will be more apt to participate in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy if these are framed in terms of customizing treatment to the individual patient and added benefit—reduced toxicities, higher quality of life during treatment and lower risk of long-term complications—rather than in terms of taking treatments away or doing less than the standard of care. Doctor-patient rapport and provider support will be crucial in this process.

Abstract Background Given excellent survival outcomes in breast cancer, there is interest in de‐escalating the amount of chemotherapy delivered to patients. This approach may be of even greater importance in the setting of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods This concurrent mixed methods study included (1) interviews with patients and patient advocates and (2) a cross‐sectional survey of women with breast cancer served by a charitable nonprofit organization. Questions evaluated interest in de‐escalation trial participation, perceived barriers/facilitators to participation, and language describing de‐escalation. Results Sixteen patient advocates and 24 patients were interviewed. Key barriers to de‐escalation included fear of recurrence, worry about decision regret, lack of clinical trial interest, and dislike for focus on less treatment. Facilitators included trust in physician recommendation, toxicity avoidance, monitoring for progression, perception of good prognosis, and impact on daily life. Participants reported that the COVID‐19 pandemic made them more likely to avoid chemotherapy if possible. Of 91 survey respondents, many (43%) patients would have been unwilling to participation in a de‐escalation clinical trial. The most commonly reported barrier to participation was fear of recurrence (85%). Few patients (19%) considered clinical trials themselves as a barrier to de‐escalation trial participation. The most popular terminology describing chemotherapy de‐escalation was “lowest effective chemotherapy dose” (53%); no patients preferred the term “de‐escalation.” Conclusions Fear of recurrence is a common concern among breast cancer survivors and patient advocates, contributing to resistance to de‐escalation clinical trial participation. Additional research is needed to understand how to engage patients in de‐escalation trials.

BackgroundWhile societal acceptance for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals is increasing, this group continues to face barriers to quality healthcare. Little is known about clinicians’ experiences with SGM patients in the oncology setting. To address this, a mixed method survey was administered to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group.Materials and methodsWe report results from the open-ended portion of the survey. Four questions asked clinicians to describe experiences with SGM patients, reservations in caring for them, suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care, and additional comments. Data were analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison method.ResultsThe majority of respondents noted they had no or little familiarity with SGM patients. A minority of respondents noted experience with gay and lesbian patients, but not transgender patients; many who reported experience with transgender patients also noted difficulty navigating the correct use of pronouns. Many respondents also highlighted positive experiences with SGM patients. Suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care included providing widespread training, attending to unique end-of-life care issues among SGM patients, and engaging in efforts to build trust.ConclusionClinicians have minimal experiences with SGM patients with cancer but desire training. Training the entire workforce may improve trust with, outreach efforts to, and cancer care delivery to the SGM community.