RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To explore financial toxicity (FT) experienced by the parents of children with cancer at end-of-life (EOL), including exploring differences by race and ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN: We performed secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews of bereaved parents' perspectives on quality EOL care. Fifty-five interviews were conducted in California and Alabama representing 48 children (0-21 years at time of death) who died of cancer ≥6 months prior. Quotes related to FT were identified and iteratively grouped into themes without an a priori framework. RESULTS: Most participants were non-Hispanic White (30; 55%), and the most common diagnoses were non-central nervous system solid tumors (16; 33%) and central nervous system tumors (16; 33%). Children died at a mean age of 11 and a median of 4 years prior to the interview. Almost all parents (52; 95%) discussed FT, including all Black and Hispanic parents. Parents identified transportation, housing, other basic needs, funeral costs, and medical costs as well as work disruptions as contributors to FT at EOL. Barriers to financial wellness included navigating insurance, insufficient financial support from the hospital, and long-term FT from treatment. Many parents discussed how the hospital and community served as facilitators of financial wellness. In some cases, finances prevented families from accessing nursing services and mental health support and affected EOL decisions. CONCLUSIONS: As FT affected almost all families' EOL experience, pediatric oncology programs should routinely screen for FT at EOL and ensure they have the resources to respond.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The authors sought to understand bereaved family preferences for end-of-life (EOL) care, particularly among Black families and those in the South. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children who died of cancer ≥6 months before at Children's of Alabama. Themes were identified via content analysis. Quotes related to medical intensity, chemotherapy, and location of death (LOD) were scored on 5-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (comfort care, chemotherapy, or home death) to 5 (medically intense care, avoidance of chemotherapy, or hospital death). RESULTS: Twenty-seven bereaved parents (12 Black) were interviewed. Children died at a mean of 13.1 years (SD = 6.1 years) and a median of 3 years before the interview (range = 1-12 years). Ten children (42%) had central nervous system tumors and the majority (63%) died in the hospital. Family decision-making involved maintaining hope, not causing harm, doing what was best for their child and themselves, and religious beliefs. There was no clear preference for home versus hospital death (3.0 [1.8-4.0]). Instead, parents considered their child's desires and/or medical needs, siblings, and prior experiences with death. To have a comfortable death, parents highlighted the need for comprehensive education about their child's EOL, a caring and comfortable environment, and 24/7 access to their care team. Families expressed a dual preference for comfort care (1.8 [1.3-2.8]) and chemotherapy (3.5 [2.7-4.1]) at EOL. CONCLUSIONS: Families did not see chemotherapy and comfort care as conflicting goals. They sought quality care emphasizing flexibility, quality time with their child, and open access to their care team, regardless of LOD.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Evidence supporting social media-based recruitment of cancer survivors is limited. This paper describes how we used Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic to augment our recruitment of breast cancer survivors for our two-site telephone-based randomized clinical trial (RCT) at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. METHODS: Originally a two-site RCT of a telephone-delivered breast cancer survivorship intervention, we extended our clinic-based recruitment to Facebook. Participant characteristics, geographic reach, and baseline outcomes were compared across recruitment sources (ie, two clinics and Facebook) using descriptive statistics and effect sizes. RESULTS: Enrollment rates (20%-29%) were comparable across recruitment sources. The 21-month Facebook marketing campaign accounted for 59% (n = 179/303) of our total sample and had the greatest geographic reach, recruiting women from 24 states. The Facebook campaign reached a total of 51,787 unique individuals and cost $88.44 in US dollars (USD) per enrolled participant. Clinic samples had a greater proportion of women who were widowed (8% v 1%; P = .03) and Facebook had a higher proportion of women with a household income over $40,000 USD (83% v 71%; P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences between Facebook and the two clinics on baseline survey scores. CONCLUSION: Augmenting traditional recruitment with Facebook increased our RCT's geographic and sociodemographic reach and supported meeting recruitment goals in a timely way. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer survivorship researchers should consider using social media as a recruitment strategy while weighing the advantages and potential biases introduced through such strategies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could affect accrual to optimization clinical trials and the generalizability of future findings. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders used a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. These included quality-of-life improvement by reducing toxicity, reduction in financial toxicity, fertility preservation, ability to avoid chemotherapy, minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions, personalized treatment, opportunities to test novel therapies, and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. Oncologists also identified accrual barriers, such as tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors, prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support enrollment in optimization trials. CONCLUSION: Although oncologists are generally willing to enroll patients on optimization clinical trials, barriers affect their acceptance. A scientific focus on overcoming these barriers is needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy on the basis of risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, particularly in breast cancer where risk of recurrence is low. Little is known about physician perspectives on delivering less intense treatment for patients who are not well represented in clinical trials. METHODS: Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists explored their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer, with a focus on breast cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. Facilitators of comfort included the sentiment that "biology is biology" (such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered), the strength of the evidence, inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations, and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included potential harm over the patient's lifetime, concerns about groups that had minimal participants, application to younger patients, and extending findings to diverse populations. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy was desired. CONCLUSIONS: The majority (92%) of physicians reported that they would de-implement treatment for patients poorly represented in clinical trials testing less treatment, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations. Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03248258.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Given the high risk of COVID-19 mortality, patients with cancer may be vulnerable to fear of COVID-19, adverse psychological outcomes, and health care delays. METHODS: This longitudinal study surveyed the pandemic's impact on patients with cancer (N= 1529) receiving Patient Advocate Foundation services during early and later pandemic. Generalized estimating equation with repeated measures was conducted to assess the effect of COVID-19 on psychological distress. Logistic regression with repeated measures was used to assess the effect of COVID-19 on any delays in accessing health care (e.g., specialty care doctors, laboratory, or diagnostic testing, etc.). RESULTS: Among 1199 respondents, 94% considered themselves high risk for COVID-19. Respondents with more fear of COVID-19 had a higher mean psychological distress score (10.21; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 9.38-11.03) compared to respondents with less fear (7.55; 95% CI 6.75-8.36). Additionally, 47% reported delaying care. Respondents with more fear of COVID-19 had higher percentages of delayed care than those with less (56; 95% CI 39%-72% vs. 44%; 95% CI 28%-61%). These relationships persisted throughout the pandemic. For respondents with a COVID-19 diagnosis in their household (n = 116), distress scores were similar despite higher delays in care (58% vs. 27%) than those without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of COVID-19 is linked to psychological distress and delays in care among patients with cancer. Furthermore, those who are personally impacted see exacerbated cancer care delays. Timely psychosocial support and health care coordination are critical to meet increased care needs of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when physicians and patients jointly select treatment that aligns with patient care goals. Incorporating patient preferences into the decision-making process is integral to successful decision-making. This study explores factors influencing treatment selection in older patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: This qualitative study included women age ≥65 years with EBC. To understand role preferences, patients completed the Control Preferences Scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore patients' treatment selection rationale. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method identifying major themes related to treatment selection. RESULTS: Of 33 patients, the majority (48%) desired shared responsibility in treatment decision-making. Interviews revealed that EBC treatment incorporated three domains: Intrinsic and extrinsic influences, clinical characteristics, and patient values. Patients considered 19 treatment selection themes, the most prioritized including physician trust and physical side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Because preferences and approach to treatment selection varied widely in this sample of older, EBC patients, more research is needed to determine best practices for preference incorporation to optimize SDM at the time of treatment decisions.

Asunto(s)