COVID-19, Social Justice, and Clinical Cancer Research

The COVID-19 pandemic and related socioeconomic events have markedly changed the environment in which cancer clinical trials are conducted. These events have resulted in a substantial, immediate-term decrease in accrual to both diagnostic and therapeutic cancer investigations as well as substantive alterations in patterns of oncologic care. The sponsors of clinical trials, including the United States National Cancer Institute, as well as the cancer centers and community oncology practices that conduct such studies, have all markedly adapted their models of care, usage of health care personnel, and regulatory requirements in the attempt to continue clinical cancer investigations while maintaining high levels of patient safety. In doing so, major changes in clinical trials practice have been embraced nationwide. There is a growing consensus that the regulatory and clinical research process alterations that have been adopted in response to the pandemic (such as the use of telemedicine visits to reduce patient travel requirements and the application of remote informed consent procedures) should be implemented long term. The COVID-19 outbreak has also refocused the oncologic clinical trials community on the need to bring clinical trials closer to patients by dramatically enhancing clinical trial access, especially for minority and underserved communities that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In this Commentary, changes to the program of clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute that could improve clinical trial availability, effectiveness, and diversity are proposed.This work was supported in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, ZIA BC 011078; Phase 0/1 Clinical Trials

Establishing a Primary Care Alliance for Conducting Cancer Prevention Clinical Research at Community Sites

In September 2020, the National Cancer Institute convened the first PARTNRS Workshop as an initiative to forge partnerships between oncologists, primary care professionals, and non-oncology specialists for promoting patient accrual into cancer prevention trials. This effort is aimed at bringing about more effective accrual methods to generate decisive outcomes in cancer prevention research. The workshop convened to inspire solutions to challenges encountered during the development and implementation of cancer prevention trials. Ultimately, strategies suggested for protocol development might enhance integration of these trials into community settings where a diversity of patients might be accrued. Research Bases (cancer research organizations that develop protocols) could encourage more involvement of primary care professionals, relevant prevention specialists, and patient representatives with protocol development beginning at the concept level to improve adoptability of the trials within community facilities, and consider various incentives to primary care professionals (i.e., remuneration). Principal investigators serving as liaisons for the NCORP affiliates and sub-affiliates, might produce and maintain Prevention Research Champions lists of PCPs and non-oncology specialists relevant in prevention research who can attract health professionals to consider incorporating prevention research into their practices. Finally, patient advocates and community health providers might convince patients of the benefits of trial-participation and encourage shared-decision making

Translating research into evidence-based practice: The National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program

The recent rapid acceleration of basic science is reshaping both our clinical research system and our health care delivery system. The pace and growing volume of medical discoveries are yielding exciting new opportunities, yet we continue to face old challenges to maintain research progress and effectively translate research into practice. The National Institutes of Health and individual government programs are increasingly emphasizing research agendas involving evidence development, comparative effectiveness research among heterogeneous populations, translational research, and accelerating the translation of research into evidence-based practice, as well as building successful research networks to support these efforts. For over 25 years, the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program has successfully extended research into the community and facilitated the translation of research into evidence-based practice. By describing its keys to success, this article provides practical guidance to cancer-focused provider-based research networks as well as those in other disciplines

Charting the future of cancer health disparities research: A position statement from the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Cancer Institute

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138314/1/caac21404_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138314/2/caac21404.pd

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research

Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention in 2010

PURPOSE: Two selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), tamoxifen and raloxifene, have been shown in randomized clinical trials to reduce the risk of developing primary invasive breast cancer (IBC) in high-risk women. In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used these studies as a basis for approving tamoxifen for primary breast chemoprevention in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women at high risk. In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for primary breast cancer chemoprevention for postmenopausal women. METHODS: Data from the year 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were analyzed to estimate the prevalence of tamoxifen and raloxifene use for chemoprevention of primary breast cancers among U.S. women. RESULTS: Prevalence of use of chemopreventive agents for primary tumors was 20,598 (95% CI, 518–114,864) for U.S. women aged 35 to 79 for tamoxifen. Prevalence was 96,890 (95% CI, 41,277–192,391) for U.S. women aged 50 to79 for raloxifene. CONCLUSION: Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for prevention of primary breast cancers continues to be low. In 2010, women reporting medication use for breast cancer chemoprevention were primarily using the more recently FDA-approved drug raloxifene. Multiple possible explanations for the low use exist, including lack of awareness and/or concern about side effects among primary care physicians and patients

Chemoprevention for breast cancer.

Despite the progress that has been made in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, this disease is still a major health problem, being the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the first leading cause of cancer death among women both in developed and economically developing countries. In some developed countries incidence rate start to decrease from the end of last millennium and this can be explained, at least in part, by the decrease in hormone replacement therapy use by post-menopausal women. Chemoprevention has the potential to be an approach of utmost importance to reduce cancer burden at least among high-risk populations. Tamoxifen and raloxifene are both indicated for the prevention of breast cancer in women at high risk for the development of the disease, although raloxifene may have a more favorable adverse-effect profile, causing fewer uterine cancers and thromboembolic events. Aromatase inhibitors will most probably become an additional prevention treatment option in the near future, in view of the promising results observed in adjuvant trials and the interesting results of the very recently published first chemoprevention trial using an aromatase inhibitor.(2) Despite impressive results in most clinical trials performed to date, chemoprevention is still not widely used. Urgently needed are better molecular risk models to accurately identify high-risk subjects, new agents with a better risk/benefit ratio and validated biomarkers.Journal ArticleReviewSCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Randomized Trial of Lisinopril Versus Carvedilol to Prevent Trastuzumab Cardiotoxicity in Patients With Breast Cancer

BackgroundTrastuzumab is highly effective for human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer but is associated with a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or beta-blockers reduce the rate of trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity (left ventricular ejection fraction decrease >10%, or >5% if below 50%) and limit treatment interruptions.MethodsIn this double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, cardiotoxicity and treatment interruptions in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab for 12 months were evaluated over a 2-year period. Patients were stratified by anthracycline use and then randomized to receive lisinopril, carvedilol, or placebo.ResultsThe study included 468 women, age 51 ± 10.7 years. For the entire cohort, cardiotoxicity was comparable in the 3 arms and occurred in 32% of patients on placebo, 29% on carvedilol, and 30% on lisinopril. For patients receiving anthracyclines, the event rates were higher in the placebo group (47%) than in the lisinopril (37%) and the carvedilol (31%) groups. Cardiotoxicity-free survival was longer on both carvedilol (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 0.89; p = 0.009) and lisinopril (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.94; p = 0.015) than on placebo. In the whole cohort, as well as in the anthracycline arm, patients on active therapy with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or beta-blockers experienced fewer interruptions in trastuzumab than those on placebo.ConclusionsIn patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, both lisinopril and carvedilol prevented cardiotoxicity in patients receiving anthracyclines. For such patients, lisinopril or carvedilol should be considered to minimize interruptions of trastuzumab. (Lisinopril or Coreg CR in Reducing Side Effects in Women With Breast Cancer Receiving Trastuzumab; NCT01009918)

Breast cancer risk assessments comparing Gail and CARE models in African-American women.

The Gail model has been used to predict invasive breast cancer risk in women using risk factors of age, age at menarche, age at first live birth, number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer, and number of previous benign breast biopsies. However, this model underestimates breast cancer risk in African-American women. The Contraceptive and Reproductive Experience (CARE) model has been developed to replace the Gail model in predicting breast cancer risk in African-American women. In a sample of 883 women who participated in the breast cancer screening program at Howard University Cancer Center, we compared the breast cancer risk estimates from the Gail model and the CARE model. The mean 5-year breast cancer risk was 0.88% (Range: 0.18-6.60%) for the Gail model and 1.29% (Range: 0.20-4.50%) for the CARE model. Using the usual cutoff-point of 1.67% or above for elevated risk, there is a significant difference in the proportion of women with elevated breast cancer risk between the Gail and the CARE models (McNemar\u27s test, p \u3c 0.0001). For both models, there was a significant mean risk difference between those with and without a family history of breast cancer (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p \u3c 0.0001). Our results confirm the need for validation of the Gail model in African-Americans and diversity in research. Although these findings are not perfect and perhaps not definitive, they are additive in the discussions during counseling and risk assessment in African-Americans. Furthermore, these findings will be complemented by new technologies such as genomics in refining our ability to assess risk