Cancer Program Research Articles

Factors Associated with Total Laryngectomy Utilization in Patients with cT4a Laryngeal Cancer.

Despite recommendations for upfront total laryngectomy (TL), many patients with cT4a laryngeal cancer (LC) instead undergo definitive chemoradiation, which is associated with inferior survival. Sociodemographic and oncologic characteristics associated with TL utilization in this population are understudied. This retrospective cohort study utilized hospital registry data from the National Cancer Database to analyze patients diagnosed with cT4a LC from 2004 to 2017. Patients were stratified by receipt of TL, and patient and facility characteristics were compared between the two groups. Logistic regression analyses and Cox proportional hazards methodology were performed to determine variables associated with receipt of TL and with overall survival (OS), respectively. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between treatment groups using log-rank testing. TL usage over time was assessed. There were 11,149 patients identified. TL utilization increased from 36% in 2004 to 55% in 2017. Treatment at an academic/research program (OR 3.06) or integrated network cancer program (OR 1.50), male sex (OR 1.19), and Medicaid insurance (OR 1.31) were associated with increased likelihood of undergoing TL on multivariate analysis (MVA), whereas age > 61 (OR 0.81), Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥ 3 (OR 0.74), and clinically positive regional nodes (OR 0.78 [cN1], OR 0.67 [cN2], OR 0.21 [cN3]) were associated with decreased likelihood. Those undergoing TL with post-operative radiotherapy (+/- chemotherapy) had better survival than those receiving chemoradiation (median OS 121 vs. 97 months; p = 0.003), and TL + PORT was associated with lower risk of death compared to chemoradiation on MVA (HR 0.72; p = 0.024). Usage of TL for cT4a LC is increasing over time but remains below 60%. Patients seeking care at academic/research centers are significantly more likely to undergo TL, highlighting the importance of decreasing barriers to accessing these centers. Increased focus should be placed on understanding and addressing the additional patient-, physician-, and system-level factors that lead to decreased utilization of surgery.

Nationwide Outcomes After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Sigmoid Colon Cancer-A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in advanced sigmoid colon carcinoma remains to be further characterized. Rationale for NAC includes downstaging on final pathology and optimization of microscopically negative margins (R0 resection). We investigated rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in advanced sigmoid colon cancer at academic cancer centers and assessed factors associated with likelihood of NAC administration. The National Cancer Database was queried from 2004 to 2017 for patients with clinical T3 or T4, N0-2, M0 sigmoid colon cancer who underwent surgical resection. Those with neoadjuvant radiation or metastatic disease were excluded. The outcomes of patients who did and did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy were evaluated for this retrospective cohort study. There were 23,597 patients of whom 364 (1.5%) received NAC. More patients received NAC at academic (41%, P < .001) and high-volume centers (27%, P < .001). Patients with Medicare/Medicaid (39%) and private insurance (52%) were more likely to receive NAC (P < .001). There was a significantly higher rate of N2 to N1 downstaging in the NAC group. Propensity-score matching demonstrated comprehensive community cancer programs (CCCP) were less likely to provide NAC (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.23, 0.70, P < .001). There was no difference in survival (P = .20), R0 resection (P = .090), or 30-day readmission rates (P = .30) in the NAC cohort compared to the non-NAC cohort. Access to centers offering multi-disciplinary care with NAC prior to surgical resection is important. This care was associated with academic and high-volume centers and private or government-sponsored insurance. There was no difference in survival between NAC and non-NAC cohort.

Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons.

Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice. Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs. Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%). Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices.

An integrated intervention programme for couples facing colorectal cancer: A randomized controlled trial.

Under the guidance of a preliminary Live with Love Conceptual Framework, a Caring for Couples Coping with Colorectal Cancer (4Cs: CRC) programme was designed specifically for colorectal cancer couples. The objectives of this study included examining the efficacy of the programme for couples adapting to colorectal cancer and comparing the effects of different intervention delivery modes (online, face-to-face and blended) on couple outcomes. A four-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted among Chinese colorectal cancer couples. Couples were randomly assigned to an online intervention, a face-to-face intervention, a blended intervention or a control group. Self-efficacy, dyadic coping, communication and dyadic outcomes (physical and mental health, negative and positive emotions and marital satisfaction) were evaluated at baseline and 6 weeks later. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and repeated measures ANOVA were employed to assess between-group differences and within-group effects in the four groups, respectively. A total of 179 couples completed the 6-week study and post-study assessments. The intervention showed generally medium-to-large effects across multiple measured outcomes, including self-efficacy, dyadic coping, communication, mental health, negative emotions and positive emotions for both patients and spouse caregivers. Additionally, interventions delivered through different modes produced equally significant effects on couple outcomes. The integrated intervention programme is effective in improving cancer adaptation in colorectal cancer couples. Long-term follow-up and a mix of quantitative and qualitative assessments are crucial for further evaluation of the programme. Retroactive registration is under review.

Retinoblastoma Outcomes in the Americas: A Prospective Analysis of 491 Children With Retinoblastoma From 23 American Countries

Globally, disparities exist in retinoblastoma treatment outcomes between high- and low-income countries, but independent analysis of American countries is lacking. We report outcomes of American retinoblastoma patients and explore factors associated with survival and globe salvage. Subanalysis of prospective cohort study data. Multicenter analysis at 57 American treatment centers in 23 countries of varying economic levels (low income [LIC], lower-middle income [LMIC], upper-middle income [UMIC], and high income [HIC]) of 491 treatment-naïve retinoblastoma patients diagnosed in 2017 and followed through 2020. Survival and globe salvage rates analyzed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models. Of patients, 8 (1.6%), 58 (11.8%), 235 (47.9%), and 190 (38.7%) were from LIC, LMIC, UMIC, and HIC groups, respectively. Three-year survival rates in LICs were 60.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6-88.2) compared with 99.2% (95% CI 94.6%-99.9%) in HICs. Death was less likely in patients >4 years of age (vs ≤4 years, HR = 0.45 [95% CI 0.27-0.78], P = .048). Patients with more advanced tumors (eg, cT3 vs cT1, HR = 4.65 × 109 [95% CI 1.25 × 109-1.72 × 1010], P < .001) and females (vs males, HR = 1.98 [95% CI 1.27-3.10], P = .04) were more likely to die. Three-year globe salvage rates were 13.3% (95% CI 5.1%-25.6%) in LMICs and 46.2% (95% CI 38.8%-53.3%) in HICs. At 3 years, 70.1% of cT1 eyes (95% CI 54.5%-81.2%) vs 8.9% of cT3 eyes (95% CI 5.5%-13.3%) were salvaged. Advanced tumor stage was associated with higher enucleation risk (eg, cT3 vs cT1, subhazard ratio = 4.98 [95% CI 2.36-10.5], P < .001). Disparities exist in survival and globe salvage in American countries based on economic level and tumor stage demonstrating a need for childhood cancer programs.

Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Differences in perception and use of remote patient monitoring among community and academic/NCI designated cancer programs.

563 Background: The benefits of remote patient monitoring (RPM) in oncology for reporting of adverse effects to improve patient outcomes are well-documented. To assess real-world use and perceptions of RPM, including its role with patient reported outcomes (PROs), the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) surveyed U.S. cancer program staff. Methods: Developed by expert advisors and patient advocacy partners, a survey of cancer program staff was distributed between December 2022 and January 2023. The survey included 25 closed and open-ended questions. Analysis was performed and responses compared using two-tailed Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of 128 staff respondents (52% MDs, 23% admin/managers, 22% other clinicians, 3% other cancer program staff), 40% worked in community, 38% academic/NCI-designated, and 20% private/physician practice settings. 34 U.S. states were represented. There was a high level of endorsement of RPM in the entire cohort; 86% of community and academic program staff agreed that RPM supplemented provider visits and informed clinical decision-making and patient/caregiver conversations. Among respondents using RPM (45%), 68% of community programs reported incorporating patient input into RPM program planning (vs 100% academic). (p=0.02). Compared to community programs, more academic programs reported planning/implementing RPM (57% vs 32%; p=0.02) and trended to have greater familiarity with RPM (80% vs 94%, p=0.07 NS). More community respondents (vs. academic) indicated concerns regarding patient comfort with RPM (80% vs 59%, p=0.05), access to a smartphone/computer (69% vs 45%, p=0.03), as well as barriers to RPM including securing funding (82% vs 57%, p=0.01) and EHR integration (61% vs 37%, p=0.02). In qualitative responses, 18% of community and 4% of academic staff described needs for provider education. Conclusions: Oncology staff across community and academic settings endorse the value of RPM to improve patient communication and clinical decision-making. There were more concerns and barriers to RPM planning and implementation reported by community programs. Nearly a third of community program staff indicated no incorporation of patient input to inform RPM planning. Further research into implementation barriers is needed, including funding/reimbursement strategies and tailoring patient/provider education to more equitably incorporate RPM across diverse cancer program settings.

Opportunities for expanded nurse and nurse navigator involvement in design, implementation and management of remote patient monitoring programs.

564 Background: The use of remote patient monitoring (RPM) in oncology for timely reporting of adverse events to improve patient outcomes is well-documented; however, less is known about real-world implementation of RPM and its impact on workforce needs. To assess use and perceptions about RPM, including its role in patient reported outcomes (PROs), the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) surveyed U.S. cancer program staff. Methods: Developed by expert advisors and patient advocacy partners, a survey of cancer program staff was distributed between December 2022 and January 2023. The survey included 25 closed and open-ended questions. Results: 128 multidisciplinary cancer program staff completed the survey, of which 45% are actively planning/implementing RPM programs. 34 U.S. states were represented. The three largest roles represented were medical oncologists (n=54; 42%), cancer program administrators (n=18; 14%) and nurses/nurse navigators (n=14; 11%). Of all respondents, 82% viewed nursing teams as the most appropriate to review and triage RPM data. Nurses indicated less involvement with the design/development of RPM programs (0%) compared to administrators (33%) and oncologists (48%). Similarly, 3% of nurses reported involvement in monitoring or taking actions on RPM data, compared to 12% of administrators and 56% of oncologists. Notably, no nurses compared to 6% of administrators and 18% of oncologists strongly agreed that they had access to educational resources and training needed to support a RPM program. In qualitative responses, nurses indicated provider education as the greatest need for RPM to become standard of care in cancer programs. Conclusions: Despite a high perceived need for nursing involvement in all aspects of RPM programs, real-world data indicates that nurses, who are expected to monitor/triage RPM data by most of their peers, are less frequently involved in the design and implementation of RPM programs. Future research is needed to understand these workforce barriers, and to explore novel approaches to tailored provider education and engagement to ensure that RPM programs benefit from diverse workforce and patient involvement.

An evidence-based quality assessment tool for ovarian cancer care delivery.

384 Background: Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States (US). Optimizing care for patients with ovarian cancer using a systematic, guideline-concordant approach improves outcomes. However, notable gaps persist for most patients with ovarian cancer in the US. Beginning in 2018, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) implemented a quality improvement (QI) initiative in community and academic cancer centers to address care gaps. From this work, our expert steering committee published a quality document to inform evidence based ovarian cancer care delivery. Methods: In Phase II of this project we used the quality document to inform a qualitative baseline self-assessment and development of four six-month QI initiatives at cancer centers in the US. Based on this work, we developed a quality assessment tool to aid cancer centers in performing QI needs-assessments using the ovarian cancer quality document. The assessment tool applies evidence-based care recommendations in key areas identified by our multidisciplinary steering committee comprised of experts in ovarian cancer care. Results: The assessment tool includes a series of program-level questions and addresses seven key domains: 1. Care coordination and patient education, 2. Prevention and screening, 3. Diagnosis and initial management, 4. Treatment planning, 5. Disease surveillance, 6. Equity in care, and 7. Quality of life. Each domain has between two and seven key recommendations identified. Sites rate themselves on a four-point scale (1-unsatisfactory, 2-needs improvement, 3-acceptable, 4-good) for each key recommendation. Each key recommendation is given equal weight, and a combined score from 0-100 is calculated for each of the seven domains. The tool includes a macro-enabled spreadsheet that makes necessary calculations and provides an overall score, domain-specific sub-scores, and a list of key recommendations that received low ratings. The tool is to be used by clinical sites to self-assess the quality of ovarian cancer care currently provided at their cancer program and serves as a needs assessment. It is recommended that the site team performs the self-assessment in the context of a facilitated half-day multidisciplinary team meeting. After the self-assessment, sites are encouraged to develop QI initiatives to address the gaps identified using the format and structure we have previously described. Conclusions: The QI Assessment tool provides an important resource for cancer centers to conduct needs assessments in key areas of ovarian cancer care. The needs assessment can be used to inform the implementation of program-specific QI initiatives to elevate quality care delivery.

Developing consensus-based oncology financial advocacy services guidelines.

38 Background: Financial advocacy interventions help patients, and their families address financial hardship experienced through the cancer journey. However, how financial services are offered to patients varies greatly. Across the field of financial advocacy there is a lack of standardization of services, which is needed to accurately evaluate the impact of oncology financial advocacy. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Financial Advocacy Network (FAN) set out to revamp the Financial Advocacy Services Guidelines originally published in 2018, with the goal of providing cancer programs direction in implementing and improving financial advocacy services offered to patients with cancer. Methods: ACCC convened a task force of 7 multidisciplinary financial advocacy experts to guide the process of creating consensus-based financial advocacy services guidelines. The task force assembled a panel of 49 diverse oncology financial advocacy experts. A literature review and input from panelists was used to draft a list of guideline statements. Panelists went through 2 rounds of anonymous voting to inform revisions to the guideline statements. Consensus for the guideline statements was set at 75% agreement. The statements were rated as should not be a guideline, minimum guideline, or enhanced guideline. Cancer program staff completed a questionnaire upon downloading the guidelines. Results: After completion of the 2 rounds, the panel reached consensus that 43 statements should be guidelines. The guidelines are split into three main domains: financial advocacy services &amp; functions; program management functions; and partner engagement functions. The updated Guidelines, which provide cancer organizations with the foundation to implement services to help reduce financial burdens of care, were published in March 2023 and are publicly available. From March 2023 until June 2023, it was downloaded by 93 cancer program staff members, of which 74% stated they will use it to assist in the development, implementation, and/or enhancement of a formal advocacy program at their organization and 58% responded that they have a financial advocacy program already implemented or have a financial advocate on staff. Conclusions: As financial advocacy grows more complex, interventions for patients with cancer are vital. The Guidelines provide expert-developed and consensus-based methods to assist cancer organizations with implementing financial intervention services. Importantly, the newly published guidelines will aid in closing existing gaps in delivery of oncology financial services as 48% of respondents stated they do not have a financial advocacy program or staff member. Further it will promote broader collaboration among partners to aid with assessment tools, creating valid measures and rigorous evaluation of the guidelines to improve cancer patients’ experience and reduce financial barriers to care.

Evolving models of care for ambulatory systemic treatment.

155 Background: Increasing demand for systemic cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada, due to an aging population and therapeutic advances, is compounded by resource shortages and provider burnout heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. This landscape has led to longer wait times, reduced services, poorer patient experiences, and widened health inequities, particularly impacting marginalized populations. In response, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) developed recommendations to optimize ambulatory systemic treatment delivery from various perspectives, including patients, providers, cancer programs, and organizations. Methods: Evidence-based recommendations were derived from a targeted literature review, current state surveys, and follow-up interviews across 16 Ontario treatment facilities. Feedback was gathered via focus groups involving patients, families, care partners, and providers. Key informants from cancer agencies in Canada and internationally were consulted through jurisdictional scans. Furthermore, focused discussions with First Nations, Inuit, Métis, urban Indigenous (FNIMUI) communities, Francophone populations, and other equity deserving groups informed the unique needs, experiences, and barriers to care of these groups. Results: Twenty-six recommendations that span various aspects of systemic treatment delivery, including referral processes, scheduling, role integration, patient education, patient and provider experiences, virtual care, and care transitions were developed. Priorities include evidence-based, person-centred care, timely access, effective collaboration, provider well-being, and technological innovation. Additionally, we highlight partnerships with FNIMUI communities, and other equity-deserving groups as strategies to address additional barriers to care. Conclusions: These recommendations strive to address challenges faced by healthcare providers and patients, ensure equitable access to care, and improve provider well-being. Engagement with FNIMUI communities and other equity-deserving groups influenced these recommendations, emphasizing the need for system-level oversight and investment to realize equitable and sustainable service delivery province-wide.

Improving ambulatory infusion drug delivery through alarm management using a quality improvement model and team learning.

472 Background: A quality outpatient cancer program depends on the accurate delivery of chemotherapy using a computerized ambulatory infusion pump to deliver a therapeutic dose of chemotherapy for patients. Between April and July 2021, our cancer center hotline reported an excessive rate of 60% of ambulatory pump were generating alarms. This resulted in interruptions in dose delivery, disruptions in clinical workflows, and negatively impacted patient satisfaction. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of frontline nurses, pharmacists, nurse leaders, and quality specialists was assembled to analyze six months of alarm data using a plan-do-study-act (PDSA) model. Quality tools were utilized to determine the root cause of the alarms and arrive at solutions to improve drug delivery by reducing alarms and calls to the infusion hotline. The team discovered 49% (n=22/45) of alarm could not be resolved, resulting in a dose interruption of the planned chemotherapy infusions. Patients returned to the infusion suite without receiving the total dose of chemotherapy as ordered. A full 70% of the hotline calls (n=16/22) were due to a “No Disposable” alarm code. Analysis of these returned units by both our group and the vendor led us to recommend a more advanced replacement model which was implemented in June/July of 2022. Results: Between July and December 2022, MCI outpatient ambulatory pump medication variances related to “No Disposable” improved by 100%. A total of 34 calls were received by the Hotline Nurse with 91% (31/34) of calls were successfully resolved. None of the ambulatory patients experienced an interruption in chemotherapy drug delivery. Conclusions: Forming a multidisciplinary working group resulted in a timely and significant improvement in chemotherapy safety using the PDSA model of quality improvement. Most importantly, confidence in chemotherapy drug delivery using ambulatory infusion pump was expressed by infusion nurses, pharmacists, and medical providers.

Pioneering a Cancer Program for the Future: Novel Approaches to Optimize the Patient Experience

Pioneering a Cancer Program for the Future: Novel Approaches to Optimize the Patient Experience

Development and initial evaluation of a visualization tool for multidisciplinary treatment discussion of patients with pancreatic cancer.

585 Background: Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States; it is a complex disease requiring coordinated patient care. Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB) are today's gold standard in pancreatic cancer but are frequently criticized for being time-intensive and inefficient. To address this issue, Cancer Collective and Hive Networks have developed a novel patient-information visualization tool designed to improve the communication and efficiency of multidisciplinary tumor board meetings. This pilot study investigated the patient-information visualization tool's usability, efficiency, and feasibility in pancreatic cancer tumor board meetings. Methods: A prospective multi-center pilot study was conducted at Northwell Health (a comprehensive community cancer program [NCCCP] in the Northeastern United States) and the University of California San Diego (an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in [NCCC] in the Southwestern United States. The feasibility of the tool was assessed by measuring the percentage of MTB cases discussed that used the patient-information visualization tool. The usability and efficiency of the tool were assessed via Likert scale questions. Acceptable usability and effectiveness were defined as a 70% score or higher. Additionally, MTB participants were queried for input on design improvements for future iterations and expected future directions of tool use. Results: The patient-information visualization tool was rolled out on 07/22/2022 at the NCCP and NCCC. From 07/22/2022-05/31/2023, 170 (92%) MTB cases were reviewed at the NCCP. From 07/22/2022-05/31/2023, 74 cases (100%) of MTB cases were reviewed using the patient-information visualization tool at the NCCP. The NCCP (n=9) mean scores for usability and efficiency were 4.31 (86%) and 4.17 (83%) respectively. The NCCC (n=6) mean scores for usability and efficiency were 4.04 (81%) and 3.96 (79%) respectively. Qualitative feedback, reported on survey open-ended questions, included suggested enhancements to improve the tool’s usability, such as leveraging data automation to reduce data entry burden, improving the user interface for ease of data visualization, and adding additional data elements (e.g., specific procedure and appointment details) to improve decision-making utility. Conclusions: Implementing the novel digital dashboard to visualize pancreatic cancer patient data was highly feasible, usable, and efficient. Future directions of tool use include refining based on qualitative feedback from end users and planning for data automation and interoperability with the EMR.

Early-life origin of prostate cancer through deregulation of miR-206 networks in maternally malnourished offspring rats

The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) concept has provided the framework to assess how early life experiences can shape health and disease throughout the life course. While maternal malnutrition has been proposed as a risk factor for the developmental programming of prostate cancer (PCa), the molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. Using RNA-seq data, we demonstrated deregulation of miR-206-Plasminogen (PLG) network in the ventral prostate (VP) of young maternally malnourished offspring. RT-qPCR confirmed the deregulation of the miR-206-PLG network in the VP of young and old offspring rats. Considering the key role of estrogenic signaling pathways in prostate carcinogenesis, in vitro miRNA mimic studies also revealed a negative correlation between miR-206 and estrogen receptor α (ESR1) expression in PNT2 cells. Together, we demonstrate that early life estrogenization associated with the deregulation of miR-206 networks can contribute to the developmental origins of PCa in maternally malnourished offspring. Understanding the molecular mechanisms by which early life malnutrition affects offspring health can encourage the adoption of a governmental policy for the prevention of non-communicable chronic diseases related to the DOHaD concept.

EP07.03-17 Robotic Lung Cancer Program: Initial Experience and Results

EP07.03-17 Robotic Lung Cancer Program: Initial Experience and Results

BCL6 promotes a stem-like CD8+ T cell program in cancer via antagonizing BLIMP1.

Overcoming CD8+ T cell exhaustion is critical in cancer immunotherapy. Recently, an intratumor stem/progenitor-like CD8+ T cell (Tprog cell) population that mediates the persistence of antitumor responses has been defined, which can further develop into a terminally differentiated CD8+ T cell (Tterm cell) subpopulation with potent cytotoxic functions. Tprog cells are the main responders to immune checkpoint blockade therapies, yet how extrinsic signals via transcription factors control Tprog cell generation and persistence in tumors is unclear. Here, we found that BCL6 inhibits tumor-specific Tterm cell generation from Tprog cell downstream of TCF1. We show that Bcl6 deficiency reduced the persistence of Tprog cells, without affecting their generation, thus abrogating long-term tumor control. High-level BCL6 expression was observed in tumor-specific T cells in draining lymph nodes (LNs) and was associated with T cell exhaustion. This was observed in TOX+TCF1+ Tprog cells in both LNs and tumors. BCL6 expression in CD8+ T cells was up-regulated by TGF-β-SMAD2 signaling but down-regulated by the IL-2-STAT5 pathway. Mechanistically, BCL6 transcriptionally repressed the expression of Tterm cell-associated genes and induced those of Tprog cell-related genes, in a manner antagonistic to BLIMP1. Prdm1 deficiency also promoted the Tprog cell program and greatly improved the efficacy of anti-PD-1 therapy. Thus, we identified the TGF-β-BCL6 and IL-2-BLIMP1 antagonistic pathways in regulation of antitumor CD8+ T cells, which may benefit the development of long-lasting and effective cancer immunotherapy.

Association between stigma and sleep quality in patients with breast cancer: A latent profile and mediation analysis

PurposeThis study aims to identify the heterogeneity in the stigma experienced by patients with breast cancer and examine the mediation effect of resilience on the relation between stigma and sleep quality. MethodA total of 396 patients with breast cancer were enrolled from Be Resilient to Breast Cancer (BRBC) program between January and April 2023. Participants completed the Social Impact Scale, the 10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Scale. Latent profile analysis (LPA) and mediation analysis were conducted to analyze the data. ResultsLPA categorized stigma into three subgroups, namely low-stigma (21.9%), moderate-stigma (64.9%), and high-stigma (13.2%). Mediation analysis revealed a fully mediated effect in the comparison between low-stigma and moderate-stigma groups (standard error [SE] = 0.13, 95%CI = 0.06,0.56), whereas a partially mediated effect was observed in the comparison between low-stigma and high-stigma groups (SE = 0.18, 95%CI = 0.39,1.10). ConclusionsStigma is a significant factor to sleep quality in breast cancer and resilience could act as a robust buffer against stigma resulting in improved sleep quality. Resilience-based interventions might be helpful in this population.

Axillary management in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the modern era: A national cancer database analysis

BackgroundAxillary management for node-positive breast cancer continues to evolve. Data further supporting targeted axillary dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was published in 2016 and may have induced changes in practice. MethodsPatients included in the National Cancer Database from 2014 to 2017 with clinical T1 to T4 and node-positive disease who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgical axillary management were evaluated. Patients were divided into the following 3 groups: selective axillary dissection, minimal axillary dissection, and maximal axillary dissection, according to surgical axillary management and pathological node status. ResultsPatients who underwent selective axillary dissection were younger (52.4 years ± 12.4, P < .0001) compared to maximal axillary dissection (55.1 ± 12.7) and minimal axillary dissection (54.6 ± 12.7). Patients with higher clinical stage more frequently underwent maximal axillary dissection, and those with lower tumor grade more frequently underwent minimal axillary dissection (P < .0001). Community cancer programs were more likely to perform maximal axillary dissection compared to all other types of programs and had the slowest rate of adoption of selective axillary dissection. Integrated Network Cancer Programs had the lowest proportion of maximal axillary dissection performed and the highest proportion of selective axillary dissection. Uninsured patients were more likely to receive maximal axillary dissection, and those with private insurance were more likely to undergo selective axillary dissection (P < .0001). Selective axillary dissection rates increased from 29.8% of procedures in 2016 to 41.5% in 2017, and MaxAD rates decreased from 62.4% in 2016 to 47.9% in 2017. ConclusionUtilization of selective axillary dissection has increased since 2016; however, discrepancies in surgical axillary management after neoadjuvant chemotherapy still exist.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Cervical Cancer Prevention and Screening among Female Pharmacy Students at a Public University in a Southern Region of Saudi Arabia.

Despite the availability of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and screening facilities at various health centers in Saudi Arabia, the annual death rate due to cervical cancer is high. Therefore, knowledge and awareness are essential for self-care and educating others, particularly among healthcare students. The present descriptive, cross-sectional study explored female pharmacy students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to cervical cancer. A total of 140 students participated in the survey. The survey was conducted for the period between April 2022 to September 2023. We observed a good knowledge score and positive attitudes among 8.5% and 93.5% of participants, respectively. A total of 10% of the study participants reported good practice scores. Most participants had never been screened for cervical cancer (94.3%). Among the non-screened subjects, feeling healthy and lacking information were the participants' significant reasons for not screening for cervical cancer. A positive history of cancer related to smoking significantly impacted the knowledge score (p = 0.050). The current study reveals that healthcare awareness programs for cervical cancer and HPV vaccination are necessary at the level of educational institutions to improve public health.