Prevalence and Correlates of Vitamin D Status in African American Men

Background: Few studies have examined vitamin D insufficiency in African American men although they are at very high risk. We examined the prevalence and correlates of vitamin D insufficiency among African American men in Philadelphia. Methods: Participants in this cross-sectional analysis were 194 African American men in the Philadelphia region who were enrolled in a risk assessment program for prostate cancer from 10/ 96–10/07. All participants completed diet and health history questionnaires and provided plasma samples, which were assessed for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations. We used linear regression models to examine associations with 25(OH)D concentrations and logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) for having 25(OH)D ≥ 15 ng/mL. Results: Mean 25(OH)D was 13.7 ng/mL, and 61% of men were classified as having vitamin D insufficiency (25(OH)D /mL). Even among men with vitamin D intake ≥ 400 IU/day, 55% had 25(OH)D concentrations /mL. In multivariate models, 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly associated with supplemental vitamin D intake (OR 4.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5, 12.4) for \u3e400 vs. 0 IU/day), milk consumption (OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.2, 16.0 for ≥ 3.5 vs. week), and blood collection in the summer. Additionally, 25(OH)D concentrations increased with more recreational physical activity (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1, 1.6 per hour). A significant inverse association of body mass index with 25(OH)D concentrations in bivariate analyses was attenuated with adjustment for season of blood collection. Conclusion: The problem of low vitamin D status in African American men may be more severe than previously reported. Future efforts to increase vitamin D recommendations and intake, such as through supplementation, are warranted to improve vitamin D status in this particularly vulnerable population

Validation of a Predictive Model for Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Secondary Analysis of RTOG 9714.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to validate a simple predictive model for survival of patients with advanced cancer.MethodsPrevious studies with training and validation datasets developed a model predicting survival of patients referred for palliative radiotherapy using three readily available factors: primary cancer site, site of metastases and Karnofsky performance score (KPS). This predictive model was used in the current study, where each factor was assigned a value proportional to its prognostic weight and the sum of the weighted scores for each patient was survival prediction score (SPS). Patients were also classified according to their number of risk factors (NRF). Three risk groups were established. The Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG) 9714 data was used to provide an additional external validation set comprised of patients treated among multiple institutions with appropriate statistical tests.ResultsThe RTOG external validation set comprised of 908 patients treated at 66 different radiation facilities from 1998 to 2002. The SPS method classified all patients into the low-risk group. Based on the NRF, two distinct risk groups with significantly different survival estimates were identified. The ability to predict survival was similar to that of the training and previous validation datasets for both the SPS and NRF methods.ConclusionsThe three variable NRF model is preferred because of its relative simplicity

Risk factors for late bowel and bladder toxicities in NRG Oncology prostate cancer trials of high-risk patients: A meta-analysis of physician-rated toxicities

Purpose: A meta-analysis of sociodemographic variables and their association with late (\u3e180 days from start of radiation therapy[RT]) bowel, bladder, and clustered bowel and bladder toxicities was conducted in patients with high-risk (clinical stages T2c-T4b or Gleason score 8-10 or prostate-specific antigen level \u3e20) prostate cancer. Methods and materials: Three NRG trials (RTOG 9202, RTOG 9413, and RTOG 9406) that accrued from 1992 to 2000 were used. Late toxicities were measured with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Late Radiation Morbidity Scale. After controlling for study, age, Karnofsky Performance Status, and year of accrual, sociodemographic variables were added to the model for each outcome variable of interest in a stepwise fashion using the Fine-Gray regression models with an entry criterion of 0.05. Results: A total of 2432 patients were analyzed of whom most were Caucasian (76%), had a KPS score of 90 to 100 (92%), and received whole-pelvic RT+HT (67%). Of these patients, 13 % and 16% experienced late grade ≥2 bowel and bladder toxicities, respectively, and 2% and 3% experienced late grade ≥3 bowel and bladder toxicities, respectively. Late grade ≥2 clustered bowel and bladder toxicities were seen in approximately 1% of patients and late grade ≥3 clustered toxicities were seen in 2 patients ( Conclusions: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer who receive whole-pelvic RT+LT HT are more likely to have a grade ≥2 bowel toxicity than those who receive prostate-only RT. LT bowel and bladder toxicities were infrequent. Future studies will need to confirm these findings utilizing current radiation technology and patient-reported outcomes

Adherence to Analgesics for Cancer Pain: A Comparative Study of African Americans and Whites Using an Electronic Monitoring Device

Despite well-documented disparities in cancer pain outcomes among African Americans, surprisingly little research exists on adherence to analgesia for cancer pain in this group. We compared analgesic adherence for cancer-related pain over a 3-month period between African Americans and whites using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Patients (N = 207) were recruited from outpatient medical oncology clinics of an academic medical center in Philadelphia (≥18 years of age, diagnosed with solid tumors or multiple myeloma, with cancer-related pain, and at least 1 prescription of oral around-the-clock analgesic). African Americans reported significantly greater cancer pain (P \u3c .001), were less likely than whites to have a prescription of long-acting opioids (P \u3c .001), and were more likely to have a negative Pain Management Index (P \u3c .001). There were considerable differences between African Americans and whites in the overall MEMS dose adherence, ie, percentage of the total number of prescribed doses that were taken (53% vs 74%, P \u3c .001). On subanalysis, analgesic adherence rates for African Americans ranged from 34% (for weak opioids) to 63% (for long-acting opioids). Unique predictors of analgesic adherence varied by race; income levels, analgesic side effects, and fear of distracting providers predicted analgesic adherence for African Americans but not for whites. Perspective: Despite evidence of disparities in cancer pain outcomes among African Americans, surprisingly little research exists on African Americans\u27 adherence to analgesia for cancer pain. This prospective study uses objective measures to compare adherence to prescribed pain medications between African American and white patients with cancer pain

Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Background PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. Methods Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0–4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed. Results 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55–0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62–0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60–0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = −0.04 [−0.16–0.22]; tablet vs paper = −0.02 [−0.11–0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [−0.07–0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/−0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported “no problems” responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper. Conclusions Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration. Trial registration NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT0215863

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer trials are currently reported by clinicians using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). To integrate the patient perspective, the NCI developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) to capture symptomatic AEs directly from patients