The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology

For patients with cancer, acknowledgment of mental and emotional distress is critically important when developing and implementing a treatment plan. The psychosocial distress associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment can have an impact on a patient’s quality of life, influence a patient’s ability to adhere to treatment regimens, and increase cost of care.^1-4 Rates of depression have been reported to range from 8%-36%, with a 29% risk of anxiety in cancer patients.^{5, 6} Emotional distress is linked to increased hopelessness about their cancer diagnosis, increased issues with chronic pain, and negative treatment outcomes.⁷ Timely screening of psychosocial distress at the first clinical visit enables providers to make appropriate referrals to resources early in their course of treatment; however, referrals to psychosocial interventions remain infrequent nationwide in the United States.⁸

There is some evidence of a differential impact of cancer on mental health diagnoses between racial/ethnic groups; however, results are not entirely consistent across studies. Using the Kessler Pyschological Distress Scale (K6) score, Alcala and colleagues found that cancer was more detrimental to mental health for black patients than for non-Hispanic white patients.⁹ Black breast cancer survivors have also been shown to be more likely to stop working during the early phases of their treatment, indicating that they and their physicians need to take steps to minimize long-term employment consequences.¹⁰ However, in a study of women with breast cancer, black women reported fewer depressive symptoms than did non-Hispanic whites.¹¹

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (ACS CoC) developed a set of Continuum of Care standards in 2012, including the implementation of psychosocial distress screening for patients with cancer. Since 2015, all accredited cancer programs are now required to evaluate these patients for signs of distress during at least 1 pivotal physician visit.¹² The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology has developed a tool that provides a mechanism for meeting the requirements of the ACS CoC accreditation requirements. The NCCN defines distress in cancer as “a multifactorial unpleasant emotional experience of a psychological (cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms and its treatment.”¹³ The recommendation of the NCCN is to provide a brief screening for psychosocial distress to identify individuals in need of additional support and to provide referrals for patients at high risk of psychosocial distress. The NCCN Distress Thermometer screening tool has been widely accepted as an effective method of identifying and characterizing distress. The NCCN tool provides a visual analogue scale for patients to rate their current distress on a scale of 1-10, as well as a problem checklist. The problem checklist includes 22 stressors addressing the practical, spiritual/religious, emotional, and physical concerns of patients. Although the NCCN tool is used widely, differences in distress scores between black and white cancer patients have not been previously described. The purpose of the study was to compare the global distress screening scores of black and white patients at an academic comprehensive cancer center in the Midwest. A second objective was to examine the distribution of individual stressors between black and white women.
 

Methods

Study sample

The study included all cancer patients from a cancer center in the Midwest who completed the NCCN distress thermometer during January 1, 2015-February 19, 2016. The patient population for this cancer center was primarily non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black, therefore, only patients identifying as non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black are included in this analysis. As part of routine clinical care, patients are asked to complete the NCCN distress thermometer at their first visit to the center. All patients in this analytic sample were newly diagnosed patients. Some patients also completed the NCCN screening tool at additional appointments; therefore, for patients with more than 1 completed tool, only the first distress screening was used in this analysis. Overall scores and individual stressor scores were entered into the electronic medical record by clinic staff at the time the patients were roomed for their visit. Patient demographics were collected through a reporting mechanism within the electronic medical record that allows for monitoring of the psychosocial screening process.
 

Variables

Race was assessed through self-report and classified as non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black. There were not enough patients of any other racial/ethnic group to be included in this analysis. Age was categorized as 18-40 years, 41-60 years, 61-84 years, and 85 years and older. Cancer type was grouped as follows: head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer (esophagus, stomach, small intestine, colon, rectum, anus), hepatobiliary (liver, gallbladder, pancreas), sarcoma (bone and soft tissue), melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, breast cancer, genitourinary (prostate, kidney, bladder), hematologic, and brain.

Two primary outcomes were assessed: overall distress, and each individual problem indicator. Overall distress was assessed using the thermometer visual analog rating (the thermometer rating of the NCCN screening tool) where possible values range from 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress). The overall distress score was categorized into low distress (<4) and high distress (≥4) for analysis. The response options for individual stressors on the problem list are Yes or No for each of 17 discrete stressors: child care, housing, insurance/financial, transportation, work/school, treatment decisions, dealing with children, dealing with partner, ability to have children, family health issues, depression, fears, nervousness, sadness, worry, loss of interest, and spiritual/religious concerns. Physical complaints were not assessed in this study. Comparisons were made between white and black patients on overall distress score as well as for each individual psychosocial stressor.
 

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (counts and proportions or means and standard deviations) were calculated stratified by race. Categorical variables were compared by race using chi-square or Fisher exact test. Logistic regression was used to predict high distress by race adjusting for sex, age, and cancer type. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NJ).

This study was reviewed and approved by the Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board (protocol number 26269).
 

Results

A total of 933 patients with cancer completed the NCCN distress screening tool. Of that total, 45 patients did not complete the overall distress score thermometer, but did complete the checklist of individual stressors. Those 45 patients were excluded from the logistic regression analysis for overall distress score, but included on comparisons of individual stressors. The distribution of overall distress scores by race can be seen in the Figure.

Table 2 presents bivariate comparisons on overall distress and individual stressors between black and white patients. There was no difference in the high distress between black and white patients in bivariate analysis (31.9% and 36.1%, respectively, P = .30). However, there were differences in the individual stressors identified for each racial group (Table 2). White patients, compared with black patients, more frequently identified treatment decisions (17.6% vs 10.1%, P = .02) and nervousness (26.8% vs 18.4%, P = .02) as sources of distress. Black patients, compared with white patients, more frequently identified housing (5.1% vs 1.7%, P = .009), the ability to have children (2.5% vs 0.4%, P =.02), and loss of interest (15.2% vs 8.9%, P = .02) as sources of distress. Distress scores did not differ between black and white patients for child care, insurance or financial issues, transportation, work or school, dealing with children, dealing with partners, family health issues, depression, fears, sadness, worry, or spiritual or religious concerns.

Discussion

Management of patients with cancer continues to evolve. Although a tremendous amount of importance is still placed on the pathophysiology of cancer and its prescribed treatments, more emphasis is being assigned to the physical and psychosocial effects of cancer on these patients. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine published a report that examined the psychosocial health of patients with cancer.¹⁴ The report recommended that all cancer care should ensure the provision of appropriate psychosocial health services by facilitating effective communication between patients and care providers, identifying each patient’s psychosocial health needs, coordinating referrals for psychosocial services and monitoring efficacy of psychosocial interventions. The inclusion of psychosocial distress screening in all cancer programs accredited by the ACS CoC helped to prioritize the identification and treatment of psychosocial issues for all cancer patients.

The present study is the first of its kind to compare the individual stressors identified through psychosocial distress screening between black and white cancer patients. In our sample, 304 of 933 patients (32%) reported high distress, with a total score of ≥4. Previous research on overall distress difference across race/ethnicity is mixed. VanHoose and colleagues found no difference in overall distress between racial groups,¹⁵ Alcala and colleagues found higher overall distress in black patients with cancer compared with white patients with cancer,⁹ and Culver and colleagues found black women with breast cancer had lower overall distress compared with white women.¹¹ We found no difference in the presence of high distress between black and white patients at our cancer center in either crude or adjusted analysis. Differences in overall distress across studies may be owing to the timing of screening. Given that overall distress may vary across time^16,17 and there is no current information on whether temporal variations in distress differ by race, it is possible that the time of distress assessment may influence demonstrated differences between racial groups. For example, if different stressors affect black and white women differentially, and those stressors are associated with different points across the cancer continuum, then we might see that the magnitude of racial differences in overall stress are time dependent. Alcala and colleagues examined any cancer diagnosis across the lifespan, whereas Culver and colleagues examined multiple time points across treatment for a small group of breast cancer patients. Badr and colleagues, in a sample of head and neck cancer patients, found that distress increased across the course of treatment;¹⁸ however they did not examine variations in type of stressors related to overall distress, nor did they examine racial differences in distress. Differences in results may also be the result of differences in measurement of distress. Culver and colleagues did not examine distress using the NCCN distress thermometer, rather psychological distress was measured by a scale rating a series of “mood-descriptive adjectives” (p. 497).¹¹ Alcala used the K-6 as a measure of psychological distress;⁹ therefore, demonstrated differences in overall distress between white and black women may vary across studies because of differences in measurement of the underlying distress variable. The lack of racial differences in overall distress in our study is consistent with the findings of VanHoose and colleagues,¹⁵ who also examined distress near the start of treatment and also used the NCCN distress thermometer as the measure of psychosocial distress.

We did find differences in the individual stressors between racial groups, indicating that the source of distress does vary between black and white cancer patients. Black patients more frequently reported distress secondary to housing, loss of interest and their ability to have children than did white patients. By comparison, white patients more frequently reported distress secondary to nervousness and treatment decisions than black patients. Identified differences in individual stressors may be attributable to sociocultural differences or differences in external support. It is also possible that black patients are more likely to willingly report distress related to nonpsychological factors, whereas white patients are more willing to report factors, such as nervousness, that are related to psychological disorders. Although it has been suggested that black cancer patients have more concerns about finances and work than do white cancer patients,¹⁹ we did not identify a statistically significant difference in child care, insurance or financial issues, transportation, work, or school between these 2 cohorts. This may be because the psychosocial distress screening score included in this study was performed at the time of initial diagnosis, and not further into their prescribed treatment at which point the financial worries may be more realized. Psychosocial screening scores obtained at subsequent visits were not included in the analysis because they are not routinely collected as part of clinical care in the center where this study took place. Furthermore, it is impossible to identify where a specific patient is in their treatment regimen based on their demographic data or subsequent distress scores in our data extraction tool. Further investigation into the sources of distress at different time points along the continuum of care may shed more light on this topic.
 

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the method of data extraction from an electronic medical record report limited the capacity to explore possible differences between the patients in our sample, such as insurance status, level of education, available social support, current employment status, stage of disease, overall prognosis and prescribed treatment regimen.

Second, there were likely patients who either did not complete a psychosocial distress screening tool or whose data were not entered into the electronic medical record for inclusion in the analysis. The present study period took place during the implementation of the NCCN tool at the center. Although the policy was to screen all new patients as part of routine care; not all patients seen at the center received the NCCN screening tool at their first visit. Owing to the mechanisms for data entry and abstraction, only information from the patients who had a completed form was able to be accessed for this study, thus a statistical comparison between those who did and did not receive the NCCN tool cannot be made. During the timeframe for this study, the head and neck, breast, genitourinary, and hematologic services completed proportionally more NCCN screening of new patients than other services in the center. This is reflected in the distributional breakdown of cancer in the overall sample of this study. It is possible that the results are more representative of differences between black and white cancer patients in the services that were more likely to properly implement NCCN screening.

Third, our patient population was derived from an urban, academic medical center and the results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Fourth, the NCCN distress thermometer is a single-item rating of overall global distress that is not intended to be a diagnostic indicator of psychological comorbidity and, therefore, does not distinguish between common psychological diagnoses such as depression or anxiety. However, the usefulness of the tool is to provide an impetus for referral to services that may then encompass the evaluation and diagnosis of particular psychological conditions. Further, the distress thermometer tool is designed to identify stress relating to the social aspects of cancer diagnosis and treatment and is not limited to psychological distress alone.
 

Strengths

Despite the limitations, there are also significant strengths to this study. The NCCN tool is a widely accepted measure for the assessment of psychosocial distress in patients with cancer. The measure is a common and routine clinical instrument,²⁰ and has also been used widely in research.^18,21-24 Given the urban, academic environment of our clinical practice, our population is more racially diverse than other settings, allowing for initial examination of disparities between white and black cancer patients.
 

Clinical implications

Understanding differences in common psychosocial stressor between black and white cancer patients may allow for clinicians to strategically look for different types of stressors in order to facilitate faster referrals to appropriate services. It has been established in the literature that distress is correlated to cancer-related outcomes and distress screening is now considered standard of care when treating cancer patients. Identifying differences in psychosocial stressors among black and white cancer patients is paramount to ensuring that the appropriate resources are available to assist them through their cancer journey. The differences in type of stressor, may indicate fundamental differences in the way patients perceive their disease or the social and cultural implication of a cancer diagnosis. In this study, white patients were more likely to find distress in the psychological realm (nervousness, decision-making), whereas black patients were more likely to be distressed about social issues (housing, ability to have children, and loss of interest). The referral needs of patients may be quite different, even with similar levels of overall distress. More research is necessary to further characterize sources of distress for cancer patients, how this distress impacts a patient’s physical and emotional well-being and how health care providers can better identify these issues and make the necessary referrals to support the whole patient.

For patients with cancer, acknowledgment of mental and emotional distress is critically important when developing and implementing a treatment plan. The psychosocial distress associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment can have an impact on a patient’s quality of life, influence a patient’s ability to adhere to treatment regimens, and increase cost of care.^1-4 Rates of depression have been reported to range from 8%-36%, with a 29% risk of anxiety in cancer patients.^{5, 6} Emotional distress is linked to increased hopelessness about their cancer diagnosis, increased issues with chronic pain, and negative treatment outcomes.⁷ Timely screening of psychosocial distress at the first clinical visit enables providers to make appropriate referrals to resources early in their course of treatment; however, referrals to psychosocial interventions remain infrequent nationwide in the United States.⁸

There is some evidence of a differential impact of cancer on mental health diagnoses between racial/ethnic groups; however, results are not entirely consistent across studies. Using the Kessler Pyschological Distress Scale (K6) score, Alcala and colleagues found that cancer was more detrimental to mental health for black patients than for non-Hispanic white patients.⁹ Black breast cancer survivors have also been shown to be more likely to stop working during the early phases of their treatment, indicating that they and their physicians need to take steps to minimize long-term employment consequences.¹⁰ However, in a study of women with breast cancer, black women reported fewer depressive symptoms than did non-Hispanic whites.¹¹

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (ACS CoC) developed a set of Continuum of Care standards in 2012, including the implementation of psychosocial distress screening for patients with cancer. Since 2015, all accredited cancer programs are now required to evaluate these patients for signs of distress during at least 1 pivotal physician visit.¹² The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology has developed a tool that provides a mechanism for meeting the requirements of the ACS CoC accreditation requirements. The NCCN defines distress in cancer as “a multifactorial unpleasant emotional experience of a psychological (cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms and its treatment.”¹³ The recommendation of the NCCN is to provide a brief screening for psychosocial distress to identify individuals in need of additional support and to provide referrals for patients at high risk of psychosocial distress. The NCCN Distress Thermometer screening tool has been widely accepted as an effective method of identifying and characterizing distress. The NCCN tool provides a visual analogue scale for patients to rate their current distress on a scale of 1-10, as well as a problem checklist. The problem checklist includes 22 stressors addressing the practical, spiritual/religious, emotional, and physical concerns of patients. Although the NCCN tool is used widely, differences in distress scores between black and white cancer patients have not been previously described. The purpose of the study was to compare the global distress screening scores of black and white patients at an academic comprehensive cancer center in the Midwest. A second objective was to examine the distribution of individual stressors between black and white women.
 

Methods

Study sample

The study included all cancer patients from a cancer center in the Midwest who completed the NCCN distress thermometer during January 1, 2015-February 19, 2016. The patient population for this cancer center was primarily non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black, therefore, only patients identifying as non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black are included in this analysis. As part of routine clinical care, patients are asked to complete the NCCN distress thermometer at their first visit to the center. All patients in this analytic sample were newly diagnosed patients. Some patients also completed the NCCN screening tool at additional appointments; therefore, for patients with more than 1 completed tool, only the first distress screening was used in this analysis. Overall scores and individual stressor scores were entered into the electronic medical record by clinic staff at the time the patients were roomed for their visit. Patient demographics were collected through a reporting mechanism within the electronic medical record that allows for monitoring of the psychosocial screening process.
 

Variables

Race was assessed through self-report and classified as non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black. There were not enough patients of any other racial/ethnic group to be included in this analysis. Age was categorized as 18-40 years, 41-60 years, 61-84 years, and 85 years and older. Cancer type was grouped as follows: head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer (esophagus, stomach, small intestine, colon, rectum, anus), hepatobiliary (liver, gallbladder, pancreas), sarcoma (bone and soft tissue), melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, breast cancer, genitourinary (prostate, kidney, bladder), hematologic, and brain.

Two primary outcomes were assessed: overall distress, and each individual problem indicator. Overall distress was assessed using the thermometer visual analog rating (the thermometer rating of the NCCN screening tool) where possible values range from 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress). The overall distress score was categorized into low distress (<4) and high distress (≥4) for analysis. The response options for individual stressors on the problem list are Yes or No for each of 17 discrete stressors: child care, housing, insurance/financial, transportation, work/school, treatment decisions, dealing with children, dealing with partner, ability to have children, family health issues, depression, fears, nervousness, sadness, worry, loss of interest, and spiritual/religious concerns. Physical complaints were not assessed in this study. Comparisons were made between white and black patients on overall distress score as well as for each individual psychosocial stressor.
 

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (counts and proportions or means and standard deviations) were calculated stratified by race. Categorical variables were compared by race using chi-square or Fisher exact test. Logistic regression was used to predict high distress by race adjusting for sex, age, and cancer type. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NJ).

This study was reviewed and approved by the Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board (protocol number 26269).
 

Results

A total of 933 patients with cancer completed the NCCN distress screening tool. Of that total, 45 patients did not complete the overall distress score thermometer, but did complete the checklist of individual stressors. Those 45 patients were excluded from the logistic regression analysis for overall distress score, but included on comparisons of individual stressors. The distribution of overall distress scores by race can be seen in the Figure.

Table 2 presents bivariate comparisons on overall distress and individual stressors between black and white patients. There was no difference in the high distress between black and white patients in bivariate analysis (31.9% and 36.1%, respectively, P = .30). However, there were differences in the individual stressors identified for each racial group (Table 2). White patients, compared with black patients, more frequently identified treatment decisions (17.6% vs 10.1%, P = .02) and nervousness (26.8% vs 18.4%, P = .02) as sources of distress. Black patients, compared with white patients, more frequently identified housing (5.1% vs 1.7%, P = .009), the ability to have children (2.5% vs 0.4%, P =.02), and loss of interest (15.2% vs 8.9%, P = .02) as sources of distress. Distress scores did not differ between black and white patients for child care, insurance or financial issues, transportation, work or school, dealing with children, dealing with partners, family health issues, depression, fears, sadness, worry, or spiritual or religious concerns.

Discussion

Management of patients with cancer continues to evolve. Although a tremendous amount of importance is still placed on the pathophysiology of cancer and its prescribed treatments, more emphasis is being assigned to the physical and psychosocial effects of cancer on these patients. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine published a report that examined the psychosocial health of patients with cancer.¹⁴ The report recommended that all cancer care should ensure the provision of appropriate psychosocial health services by facilitating effective communication between patients and care providers, identifying each patient’s psychosocial health needs, coordinating referrals for psychosocial services and monitoring efficacy of psychosocial interventions. The inclusion of psychosocial distress screening in all cancer programs accredited by the ACS CoC helped to prioritize the identification and treatment of psychosocial issues for all cancer patients.

The present study is the first of its kind to compare the individual stressors identified through psychosocial distress screening between black and white cancer patients. In our sample, 304 of 933 patients (32%) reported high distress, with a total score of ≥4. Previous research on overall distress difference across race/ethnicity is mixed. VanHoose and colleagues found no difference in overall distress between racial groups,¹⁵ Alcala and colleagues found higher overall distress in black patients with cancer compared with white patients with cancer,⁹ and Culver and colleagues found black women with breast cancer had lower overall distress compared with white women.¹¹ We found no difference in the presence of high distress between black and white patients at our cancer center in either crude or adjusted analysis. Differences in overall distress across studies may be owing to the timing of screening. Given that overall distress may vary across time^16,17 and there is no current information on whether temporal variations in distress differ by race, it is possible that the time of distress assessment may influence demonstrated differences between racial groups. For example, if different stressors affect black and white women differentially, and those stressors are associated with different points across the cancer continuum, then we might see that the magnitude of racial differences in overall stress are time dependent. Alcala and colleagues examined any cancer diagnosis across the lifespan, whereas Culver and colleagues examined multiple time points across treatment for a small group of breast cancer patients. Badr and colleagues, in a sample of head and neck cancer patients, found that distress increased across the course of treatment;¹⁸ however they did not examine variations in type of stressors related to overall distress, nor did they examine racial differences in distress. Differences in results may also be the result of differences in measurement of distress. Culver and colleagues did not examine distress using the NCCN distress thermometer, rather psychological distress was measured by a scale rating a series of “mood-descriptive adjectives” (p. 497).¹¹ Alcala used the K-6 as a measure of psychological distress;⁹ therefore, demonstrated differences in overall distress between white and black women may vary across studies because of differences in measurement of the underlying distress variable. The lack of racial differences in overall distress in our study is consistent with the findings of VanHoose and colleagues,¹⁵ who also examined distress near the start of treatment and also used the NCCN distress thermometer as the measure of psychosocial distress.

We did find differences in the individual stressors between racial groups, indicating that the source of distress does vary between black and white cancer patients. Black patients more frequently reported distress secondary to housing, loss of interest and their ability to have children than did white patients. By comparison, white patients more frequently reported distress secondary to nervousness and treatment decisions than black patients. Identified differences in individual stressors may be attributable to sociocultural differences or differences in external support. It is also possible that black patients are more likely to willingly report distress related to nonpsychological factors, whereas white patients are more willing to report factors, such as nervousness, that are related to psychological disorders. Although it has been suggested that black cancer patients have more concerns about finances and work than do white cancer patients,¹⁹ we did not identify a statistically significant difference in child care, insurance or financial issues, transportation, work, or school between these 2 cohorts. This may be because the psychosocial distress screening score included in this study was performed at the time of initial diagnosis, and not further into their prescribed treatment at which point the financial worries may be more realized. Psychosocial screening scores obtained at subsequent visits were not included in the analysis because they are not routinely collected as part of clinical care in the center where this study took place. Furthermore, it is impossible to identify where a specific patient is in their treatment regimen based on their demographic data or subsequent distress scores in our data extraction tool. Further investigation into the sources of distress at different time points along the continuum of care may shed more light on this topic.
 

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the method of data extraction from an electronic medical record report limited the capacity to explore possible differences between the patients in our sample, such as insurance status, level of education, available social support, current employment status, stage of disease, overall prognosis and prescribed treatment regimen.

Second, there were likely patients who either did not complete a psychosocial distress screening tool or whose data were not entered into the electronic medical record for inclusion in the analysis. The present study period took place during the implementation of the NCCN tool at the center. Although the policy was to screen all new patients as part of routine care; not all patients seen at the center received the NCCN screening tool at their first visit. Owing to the mechanisms for data entry and abstraction, only information from the patients who had a completed form was able to be accessed for this study, thus a statistical comparison between those who did and did not receive the NCCN tool cannot be made. During the timeframe for this study, the head and neck, breast, genitourinary, and hematologic services completed proportionally more NCCN screening of new patients than other services in the center. This is reflected in the distributional breakdown of cancer in the overall sample of this study. It is possible that the results are more representative of differences between black and white cancer patients in the services that were more likely to properly implement NCCN screening.

Third, our patient population was derived from an urban, academic medical center and the results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Fourth, the NCCN distress thermometer is a single-item rating of overall global distress that is not intended to be a diagnostic indicator of psychological comorbidity and, therefore, does not distinguish between common psychological diagnoses such as depression or anxiety. However, the usefulness of the tool is to provide an impetus for referral to services that may then encompass the evaluation and diagnosis of particular psychological conditions. Further, the distress thermometer tool is designed to identify stress relating to the social aspects of cancer diagnosis and treatment and is not limited to psychological distress alone.
 

Strengths

Despite the limitations, there are also significant strengths to this study. The NCCN tool is a widely accepted measure for the assessment of psychosocial distress in patients with cancer. The measure is a common and routine clinical instrument,²⁰ and has also been used widely in research.^18,21-24 Given the urban, academic environment of our clinical practice, our population is more racially diverse than other settings, allowing for initial examination of disparities between white and black cancer patients.
 

Clinical implications

Understanding differences in common psychosocial stressor between black and white cancer patients may allow for clinicians to strategically look for different types of stressors in order to facilitate faster referrals to appropriate services. It has been established in the literature that distress is correlated to cancer-related outcomes and distress screening is now considered standard of care when treating cancer patients. Identifying differences in psychosocial stressors among black and white cancer patients is paramount to ensuring that the appropriate resources are available to assist them through their cancer journey. The differences in type of stressor, may indicate fundamental differences in the way patients perceive their disease or the social and cultural implication of a cancer diagnosis. In this study, white patients were more likely to find distress in the psychological realm (nervousness, decision-making), whereas black patients were more likely to be distressed about social issues (housing, ability to have children, and loss of interest). The referral needs of patients may be quite different, even with similar levels of overall distress. More research is necessary to further characterize sources of distress for cancer patients, how this distress impacts a patient’s physical and emotional well-being and how health care providers can better identify these issues and make the necessary referrals to support the whole patient.

For patients with cancer, acknowledgment of mental and emotional distress is critically important when developing and implementing a treatment plan. The psychosocial distress associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment can have an impact on a patient’s quality of life, influence a patient’s ability to adhere to treatment regimens, and increase cost of care.^1-4 Rates of depression have been reported to range from 8%-36%, with a 29% risk of anxiety in cancer patients.^{5, 6} Emotional distress is linked to increased hopelessness about their cancer diagnosis, increased issues with chronic pain, and negative treatment outcomes.⁷ Timely screening of psychosocial distress at the first clinical visit enables providers to make appropriate referrals to resources early in their course of treatment; however, referrals to psychosocial interventions remain infrequent nationwide in the United States.⁸

There is some evidence of a differential impact of cancer on mental health diagnoses between racial/ethnic groups; however, results are not entirely consistent across studies. Using the Kessler Pyschological Distress Scale (K6) score, Alcala and colleagues found that cancer was more detrimental to mental health for black patients than for non-Hispanic white patients.⁹ Black breast cancer survivors have also been shown to be more likely to stop working during the early phases of their treatment, indicating that they and their physicians need to take steps to minimize long-term employment consequences.¹⁰ However, in a study of women with breast cancer, black women reported fewer depressive symptoms than did non-Hispanic whites.¹¹

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (ACS CoC) developed a set of Continuum of Care standards in 2012, including the implementation of psychosocial distress screening for patients with cancer. Since 2015, all accredited cancer programs are now required to evaluate these patients for signs of distress during at least 1 pivotal physician visit.¹² The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology has developed a tool that provides a mechanism for meeting the requirements of the ACS CoC accreditation requirements. The NCCN defines distress in cancer as “a multifactorial unpleasant emotional experience of a psychological (cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms and its treatment.”¹³ The recommendation of the NCCN is to provide a brief screening for psychosocial distress to identify individuals in need of additional support and to provide referrals for patients at high risk of psychosocial distress. The NCCN Distress Thermometer screening tool has been widely accepted as an effective method of identifying and characterizing distress. The NCCN tool provides a visual analogue scale for patients to rate their current distress on a scale of 1-10, as well as a problem checklist. The problem checklist includes 22 stressors addressing the practical, spiritual/religious, emotional, and physical concerns of patients. Although the NCCN tool is used widely, differences in distress scores between black and white cancer patients have not been previously described. The purpose of the study was to compare the global distress screening scores of black and white patients at an academic comprehensive cancer center in the Midwest. A second objective was to examine the distribution of individual stressors between black and white women.
 

Methods

Study sample

The study included all cancer patients from a cancer center in the Midwest who completed the NCCN distress thermometer during January 1, 2015-February 19, 2016. The patient population for this cancer center was primarily non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black, therefore, only patients identifying as non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black are included in this analysis. As part of routine clinical care, patients are asked to complete the NCCN distress thermometer at their first visit to the center. All patients in this analytic sample were newly diagnosed patients. Some patients also completed the NCCN screening tool at additional appointments; therefore, for patients with more than 1 completed tool, only the first distress screening was used in this analysis. Overall scores and individual stressor scores were entered into the electronic medical record by clinic staff at the time the patients were roomed for their visit. Patient demographics were collected through a reporting mechanism within the electronic medical record that allows for monitoring of the psychosocial screening process.
 

Variables

Race was assessed through self-report and classified as non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black. There were not enough patients of any other racial/ethnic group to be included in this analysis. Age was categorized as 18-40 years, 41-60 years, 61-84 years, and 85 years and older. Cancer type was grouped as follows: head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer (esophagus, stomach, small intestine, colon, rectum, anus), hepatobiliary (liver, gallbladder, pancreas), sarcoma (bone and soft tissue), melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, breast cancer, genitourinary (prostate, kidney, bladder), hematologic, and brain.

Two primary outcomes were assessed: overall distress, and each individual problem indicator. Overall distress was assessed using the thermometer visual analog rating (the thermometer rating of the NCCN screening tool) where possible values range from 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress). The overall distress score was categorized into low distress (<4) and high distress (≥4) for analysis. The response options for individual stressors on the problem list are Yes or No for each of 17 discrete stressors: child care, housing, insurance/financial, transportation, work/school, treatment decisions, dealing with children, dealing with partner, ability to have children, family health issues, depression, fears, nervousness, sadness, worry, loss of interest, and spiritual/religious concerns. Physical complaints were not assessed in this study. Comparisons were made between white and black patients on overall distress score as well as for each individual psychosocial stressor.
 

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (counts and proportions or means and standard deviations) were calculated stratified by race. Categorical variables were compared by race using chi-square or Fisher exact test. Logistic regression was used to predict high distress by race adjusting for sex, age, and cancer type. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NJ).

This study was reviewed and approved by the Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board (protocol number 26269).
 

Results

A total of 933 patients with cancer completed the NCCN distress screening tool. Of that total, 45 patients did not complete the overall distress score thermometer, but did complete the checklist of individual stressors. Those 45 patients were excluded from the logistic regression analysis for overall distress score, but included on comparisons of individual stressors. The distribution of overall distress scores by race can be seen in the Figure.

Table 2 presents bivariate comparisons on overall distress and individual stressors between black and white patients. There was no difference in the high distress between black and white patients in bivariate analysis (31.9% and 36.1%, respectively, P = .30). However, there were differences in the individual stressors identified for each racial group (Table 2). White patients, compared with black patients, more frequently identified treatment decisions (17.6% vs 10.1%, P = .02) and nervousness (26.8% vs 18.4%, P = .02) as sources of distress. Black patients, compared with white patients, more frequently identified housing (5.1% vs 1.7%, P = .009), the ability to have children (2.5% vs 0.4%, P =.02), and loss of interest (15.2% vs 8.9%, P = .02) as sources of distress. Distress scores did not differ between black and white patients for child care, insurance or financial issues, transportation, work or school, dealing with children, dealing with partners, family health issues, depression, fears, sadness, worry, or spiritual or religious concerns.

Discussion

Management of patients with cancer continues to evolve. Although a tremendous amount of importance is still placed on the pathophysiology of cancer and its prescribed treatments, more emphasis is being assigned to the physical and psychosocial effects of cancer on these patients. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine published a report that examined the psychosocial health of patients with cancer.¹⁴ The report recommended that all cancer care should ensure the provision of appropriate psychosocial health services by facilitating effective communication between patients and care providers, identifying each patient’s psychosocial health needs, coordinating referrals for psychosocial services and monitoring efficacy of psychosocial interventions. The inclusion of psychosocial distress screening in all cancer programs accredited by the ACS CoC helped to prioritize the identification and treatment of psychosocial issues for all cancer patients.

The present study is the first of its kind to compare the individual stressors identified through psychosocial distress screening between black and white cancer patients. In our sample, 304 of 933 patients (32%) reported high distress, with a total score of ≥4. Previous research on overall distress difference across race/ethnicity is mixed. VanHoose and colleagues found no difference in overall distress between racial groups,¹⁵ Alcala and colleagues found higher overall distress in black patients with cancer compared with white patients with cancer,⁹ and Culver and colleagues found black women with breast cancer had lower overall distress compared with white women.¹¹ We found no difference in the presence of high distress between black and white patients at our cancer center in either crude or adjusted analysis. Differences in overall distress across studies may be owing to the timing of screening. Given that overall distress may vary across time^16,17 and there is no current information on whether temporal variations in distress differ by race, it is possible that the time of distress assessment may influence demonstrated differences between racial groups. For example, if different stressors affect black and white women differentially, and those stressors are associated with different points across the cancer continuum, then we might see that the magnitude of racial differences in overall stress are time dependent. Alcala and colleagues examined any cancer diagnosis across the lifespan, whereas Culver and colleagues examined multiple time points across treatment for a small group of breast cancer patients. Badr and colleagues, in a sample of head and neck cancer patients, found that distress increased across the course of treatment;¹⁸ however they did not examine variations in type of stressors related to overall distress, nor did they examine racial differences in distress. Differences in results may also be the result of differences in measurement of distress. Culver and colleagues did not examine distress using the NCCN distress thermometer, rather psychological distress was measured by a scale rating a series of “mood-descriptive adjectives” (p. 497).¹¹ Alcala used the K-6 as a measure of psychological distress;⁹ therefore, demonstrated differences in overall distress between white and black women may vary across studies because of differences in measurement of the underlying distress variable. The lack of racial differences in overall distress in our study is consistent with the findings of VanHoose and colleagues,¹⁵ who also examined distress near the start of treatment and also used the NCCN distress thermometer as the measure of psychosocial distress.

We did find differences in the individual stressors between racial groups, indicating that the source of distress does vary between black and white cancer patients. Black patients more frequently reported distress secondary to housing, loss of interest and their ability to have children than did white patients. By comparison, white patients more frequently reported distress secondary to nervousness and treatment decisions than black patients. Identified differences in individual stressors may be attributable to sociocultural differences or differences in external support. It is also possible that black patients are more likely to willingly report distress related to nonpsychological factors, whereas white patients are more willing to report factors, such as nervousness, that are related to psychological disorders. Although it has been suggested that black cancer patients have more concerns about finances and work than do white cancer patients,¹⁹ we did not identify a statistically significant difference in child care, insurance or financial issues, transportation, work, or school between these 2 cohorts. This may be because the psychosocial distress screening score included in this study was performed at the time of initial diagnosis, and not further into their prescribed treatment at which point the financial worries may be more realized. Psychosocial screening scores obtained at subsequent visits were not included in the analysis because they are not routinely collected as part of clinical care in the center where this study took place. Furthermore, it is impossible to identify where a specific patient is in their treatment regimen based on their demographic data or subsequent distress scores in our data extraction tool. Further investigation into the sources of distress at different time points along the continuum of care may shed more light on this topic.
 

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the method of data extraction from an electronic medical record report limited the capacity to explore possible differences between the patients in our sample, such as insurance status, level of education, available social support, current employment status, stage of disease, overall prognosis and prescribed treatment regimen.

Second, there were likely patients who either did not complete a psychosocial distress screening tool or whose data were not entered into the electronic medical record for inclusion in the analysis. The present study period took place during the implementation of the NCCN tool at the center. Although the policy was to screen all new patients as part of routine care; not all patients seen at the center received the NCCN screening tool at their first visit. Owing to the mechanisms for data entry and abstraction, only information from the patients who had a completed form was able to be accessed for this study, thus a statistical comparison between those who did and did not receive the NCCN tool cannot be made. During the timeframe for this study, the head and neck, breast, genitourinary, and hematologic services completed proportionally more NCCN screening of new patients than other services in the center. This is reflected in the distributional breakdown of cancer in the overall sample of this study. It is possible that the results are more representative of differences between black and white cancer patients in the services that were more likely to properly implement NCCN screening.

Third, our patient population was derived from an urban, academic medical center and the results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Fourth, the NCCN distress thermometer is a single-item rating of overall global distress that is not intended to be a diagnostic indicator of psychological comorbidity and, therefore, does not distinguish between common psychological diagnoses such as depression or anxiety. However, the usefulness of the tool is to provide an impetus for referral to services that may then encompass the evaluation and diagnosis of particular psychological conditions. Further, the distress thermometer tool is designed to identify stress relating to the social aspects of cancer diagnosis and treatment and is not limited to psychological distress alone.
 

Strengths

Despite the limitations, there are also significant strengths to this study. The NCCN tool is a widely accepted measure for the assessment of psychosocial distress in patients with cancer. The measure is a common and routine clinical instrument,²⁰ and has also been used widely in research.^18,21-24 Given the urban, academic environment of our clinical practice, our population is more racially diverse than other settings, allowing for initial examination of disparities between white and black cancer patients.
 

Clinical implications

Understanding differences in common psychosocial stressor between black and white cancer patients may allow for clinicians to strategically look for different types of stressors in order to facilitate faster referrals to appropriate services. It has been established in the literature that distress is correlated to cancer-related outcomes and distress screening is now considered standard of care when treating cancer patients. Identifying differences in psychosocial stressors among black and white cancer patients is paramount to ensuring that the appropriate resources are available to assist them through their cancer journey. The differences in type of stressor, may indicate fundamental differences in the way patients perceive their disease or the social and cultural implication of a cancer diagnosis. In this study, white patients were more likely to find distress in the psychological realm (nervousness, decision-making), whereas black patients were more likely to be distressed about social issues (housing, ability to have children, and loss of interest). The referral needs of patients may be quite different, even with similar levels of overall distress. More research is necessary to further characterize sources of distress for cancer patients, how this distress impacts a patient’s physical and emotional well-being and how health care providers can better identify these issues and make the necessary referrals to support the whole patient.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in men. ¹ Treatment choices for prostate cancer are perhaps more varied than for many other cancers, with surgery, external beam radiation therapy, and brachytherapy all widely used, a number of adjuvant and nonstandard therapy options available, as well as the possibility of not immediately treating the cancer – the “active surveillance” option.

Biochemical failure rates do not differ between the 3 main treatments,² but each exposes patients to the risk of side effects, including impotence, incontinence, rectal injury, and operative mortality. Recovery can be gradual and will not always involve a return to baseline functioning.³ Quality-of-life comparisons observed covariate-controlled decreases in varying specific aspects of quality of life for each of the treatments.⁴

Surgery, brachytherapy, and external beam radiation therapy have each shown advantages over other treatments on at least some specific aspect, but disadvantages on others.⁴ Ongoing surveillance of a cancer left in place has become a more common option in part because of the disadvantages of traditional treatment and because of the growing recognition that sensitive diagnosis techniques often locate cancers that might not be life threatening. Recent reviews and reasonably long-term trials portray active surveillance as a valid alternative to surgery and radiation in many cases, with little difference in life expectancy and cancer-related quality of life, and possibly some reduction in health system cost.^5-7

Prostate cancer patients cope with these uncertainties and decisions in many ways,⁸ often using multiple coping behaviors,⁹ but coping almost always includes seeking information and social support, as well as active problem-solving, to make informed treatment decisions consistent with their values.

Unfortunately, prostate patients often do not receive or use needed information. McGregor¹⁰ reported that patients were aware of their incomplete understanding of their disease and treatment options. Findings from several studies suggest that patients often perceive that clinicians inform them about the disease and treatment options but then send them home unprepared to deal with such things as incontinence or difficulties with sexual functioning.¹¹

Similarly, previous research demonstrates the benefits of social support for prostate cancer patients who receive it, but also that overall they are underserved.^12,13 Male cancer patients are generally far less likely to seek support and health information than are female patients. And when patients with prostate cancer do participate in online cancer support groups, they are more likely to exchange information, whereas breast cancer patients provide support for each other.¹⁴

Mentoring

Some responses to these knowledge and support gaps pair newly diagnosed patients with survivors willing to be a guide, coach, and a source of information, as in the American Cancer Society’s (ACS’s) Man-to-Man support groups.¹⁵ Peer mentors may have a sophisticated level of understanding from their own experiences with medical literature and the health care system, but this cannot be assumed. Another mentoring model is expert-based, exemplified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) cancer information specialist at the Cancer Information Service (CIS) and a similar system at the ACS. These telephone services allow for responsiveness to the caller’s needs, existing knowledge, and the caller’s readiness for information. The CIS specialist can also introduce important information the caller might not have known to ask about.¹⁶

However, not all problems presented by callers can be solved in a single conversation. Callers are encouraged to call back with additional questions or when their situation changes, but speaking with the same specialist is not facilitated, so it is hard for a second call to build upon the first. Combining the expertise of the cancer information specialist with the ongoing and proactive contact and support typical of the lay guide/mentor/navigator could be more effective. Here a CIS-trained information specialist called prostate patients multiple times over the intervention period to help them deal with information seeking and interpretation. In a previous study with breast cancer patients, a mentor of this sort improved patient information competence and emotional processing.¹⁷

Interactive resources

Online resources allow cancer patients self-paced and self-directed access to information and support anonymously and at any time. However, this can be more complicated than it might at first seem. With the complexities of the prostate cancer diagnosis, the multiple treatment options, and the uncertain but potentially serious effects of the treatments themselves, the amount of potentially relevant information is quite large. Then, because individuals will value differentially the attributes of treatments, their consequences, or even notions of risk and gain, a system must be able to respond appropriately to a range of very different people. Beyond this, as prostate cancer patients move from the shock of a cancer diagnosis to the problems of interpreting its details, to making treatment decisions, to dealing with problems of recovery, and then re-establishing what is a “new normal” for them, an individual’s demands on a system vary as well. Comprehensive and integrated systems of services meet the varying needs of their users at different times and different situations.^18,19 The systems approach not only makes it far easier for users to find what they need, it may also encourage them to see connections between physical, emotional, and social aspects of their illness. Versions of the system used in the present study – CHESS, or Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System – have been effective supporting patients with AIDS and breast and lung cancers, and teens with asthma.^16,20

Study goals and hypotheses

Given the success of the 2 aforementioned approaches, we wanted to compare how CHESS and ongoing contact with a human cancer information mentor in patients with prostate cancer would affect both several general aspects of quality of life and 1 specific to prostate cancer. We also examined differences in the patients’ information competence, quality of life, and social support. There was no a priori expectation that one intervention would be superior to the other, but any differences found could be important to policy decisions, given their quite-different cost and scalability.

More importantly, the primary hypothesis of the study was that patients with access to both CHESS and a mentor would experience substantially better outcomes than those with access to either intervention alone, because each had the potential to enhance the other’s benefits. For example, a patient could read CHESS material and come to the mentor much better prepared. By referring the user to specific parts of CHESS for basic information, the mentor could use calls to address more complex issues, or help interpret and evaluate difficult issues. In addition, because CHESS provides the mentor information about changes in the patient’s treatments, symptoms, and CHESS use, in the combined condition the cancer information mentor can know much more about the patient than when working alone. We also expected that the mentor would stimulate the kind of diverse use of CHESS services we have found to be most effective for improving quality of life.²¹ A previous study of CHESS for women with breast cancer concluded that a combined condition benefitted patients more than either CHESS or a cancer mentor alone,¹⁷ and we sought to determine whether we would have similar results with men with prostate cancer.

Because both mentoring and CHESS have consistently produced positive quality of life effects on their own, compared to controls, there is no reasonable expectation that negative effects of a combined condition could occur and should be tested for. Thus, the study was powered for 1-tailed significance in the comparison between the combined condition and either intervention alone, a procedure used consistently in previous studies of CHESS components or combined conditions. However, since the research question comparing the 2 interventions alone had no such strong history it was tested 2-tailed.
 

Methods

Recruitment

Study recruitment was conducted from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 at the University of Wisconsin’s Paul P Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center in Madison, Hartford Hospital’s Helen and Harry Gray Cancer Center in Hartford, Connecticut, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

A total of 461 patients were invited to participate in the study. Of those patients, 147 declined to participate, 4 were excluded, and 310 were randomized to access to CHESS only, access to a human mentor only, or access to CHESS and a mentor (CHESS+Mentor) during the 6-month intervention period, which provided adequate power (>.80) for effects of moderate size (Figure 1). Randomization was done with a computer-generated list that site study managers accessed on a patient-by-patient basis, with experimental conditions blocked within sites.

Interventions

To provide an equal baseline, all of the participants were given access to the Internet, which is becoming a de facto standard for information access. Internet access charges were paid for all participants during the 6-month intervention period, and computers were loaned to those who did not have a personal computer. All of the participants were offered training on using the computer, particularly with Google search procedures so that they could access resources on prostate cancer.

Participants assigned to the CHESS or CHESS+Mentor conditions were also offered training in using CHESS (basically a guided tour), which typically took about 30 minutes on the telephone but was occasionally done in-person.

CHESS intervention. In creating CHESS for prostate cancer patients, a combination of patient needs assessments, focus groups with patients and family members, and clinician expertise helped us identify the needs, coping mechanisms, and relevant medical information to help patients respond to the disease. An article describing development of the CHESS Prostate Cancer Module²² presents how those different services address patient needs for information, communication, and support, or build skills.

Most of these services were present in CHESS for other diseases, but several were newly created to meet needs of prostate cancer patients and partners, such as a decision map tool and a module on managing sexual problems.²² Also, patients expressed frustration at being overwhelmed by the volume of information and said they would prefer to focus only on what was most relevant, so we created an alternative navigation structure on the CHESS homepage. Using terms suggested by focus groups of prostate cancer survivors and their spouses, we devised a navigation structure called Step-by-Step that identified 6 typical sequential steps of men’s experience with prostate cancer. Clicking on a step would take a patient to a menu focused on actions and considerations specific to that disease step, links to information most relevant at that step, and suggested questions to ask oneself and one’s doctor.

Mentor intervention. The cancer information mentor who made most of the calls to patients was an experienced information specialist with the Cancer Information Service and had served as the expert for the CHESS Ask an Expert service for 6 years. She was highly knowledgeable about prostate cancer and patient information needs. Her additional training for this study focused on taking advantage of repeated contacts with the participants and how to set limits to avoid any semblance of psychological counseling. At recruitment, we made clear that a male mentor was also available if the participant would prefer to discuss sensitive topics with another man. The male mentor was experienced in the Man-to-Man program and received additional training for this role, but he was used for only 1% of all contacts.

During calls, the mentor had Internet access to a range of NCI, ACS, and other resources. She could help interpret information the participant already possessed as well as refer him to other public resources, including those on the Internet. CHESS software designers created an additional interface for the mentor that handled call scheduling and allowed her to record the topics of conversations, her responses and recommendations, and her overall ratings of patient preparedness and satisfaction. Using this interface allowed the mentor to quickly review a participant’s status and focus the conversation on issues raised by past conversations or scheduled treatment events. The mentor calls were audiorecorded and reviewed frequently by the project director during the early months of intervention and less frequently thereafter to ensure adherence to the protocol.

The mentor telephoned weekly during the first month of intervention, then twice during the second month, and once a month during the final 4 months of the intervention (ie, 10 scheduled calls, though patients could also initiate additional calls). Calls were scheduled through a combination of telephone contact and e-mail according to the patient’s preference. Call length ranged from 5 minutes to an hour, with the average about 12 minutes (the first call tended to be considerably longer, and was scheduled for 45 minutes). About 10%-15% of participants in the Mentor conditions initiated calls to the mentor to obtain additional support, and about 15% of scheduled calls in fact took place as e-mail exchanges. A few calls were missed because of scheduling difficulties, and some participants stopped scheduling the last few calls, but the average number of full calls or e-mails was 6.41 per participant.

CHESS+Mentor intervention. For the CHESS+Mentor condition, the interactions and resources used were similar to those of the Mentor-only condition, but the interface also provided the mentor with a summary of the participant’s recent CHESS use and any concerns reported to CHESS, which helped the mentor assess knowledge and make tailored recommendations. The mentor could also refer participants to specific resources within CHESS, aided by knowledge of what parts of CHESS had or had not been used.

Assessment methods

Patients were given surveys at the baseline visit to complete and mail back to research staff before randomization. Follow-up surveys were mailed to patients at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks post intervention access, and patients returned the surveys by mail. Patient withdrawal rates were about 3%.

Measures

Outcomes. This study included 4 measures of quality of life (an average of relevant portions of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life (WHOQOL) measure, Emotional and Functional Well-being, and a prostate-cancer specific index, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). We also tested group differences on 5 more specific outcomes that were likely to be proximal rather than distal effects of the interventions: Cancer Information Competence, Health care Competence, Social Support, Bonding (with other patients), and Positive Coping.



Quality of life. Quality of life was measured by combining the psychological, social, and overall dimensions of the WHOQOL measures.²³ Each of the 11 items was assessed with a 5-point scale, and the mean of those answers was the overall score.



Emotional well-being. Respondents answered 6 items of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Prostate (FACT-P)²⁴ describing emotional aspects of reactions to cancer.



Functional well-being. Respondents indicated how often they experienced each of the seven functional well-being subscale items of the FACT-Prostate.²⁴



Prostate cancer patient functioning. We used the EPIC to measure of 3 of 4 domains of prostate cancer patient functioning: urinary, bowel, and sexual (omitting hormonal).²⁵ The EPIC measures frequency and subjective degree of being a problem of several aspects in each domain. We then summed scores across the domains and transformed linearly to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores representing better functioning.



Cancer information competence. Five cancer information competence items, measured on a 5-point scale, assessed a participant’s perception about whether he could find and effectively and use health information, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Social support. Six 5-point social support items assessed the informational and emotional support provided by friends, family, coworkers, and others, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Health care competence. Five 5-point health care competence items assessed a patient’s comfort and activation level dealing with physicians and health care situations, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Positive coping. Coping strategies were measured with the Brief Cope, a shorter version of the original 60-item COPE scale.²⁶ Positive coping strategy, a predictor of positive adaptation in numerous coping contexts, was measured with the mean score of 4 scales (8 items in all): active coping, planning, positive reframing, and humor.



Bonding. Bonding with other prostate cancer patients was measured with five 5-point items about how frequently participants connected with and got information and support from other men with prostate cancer.²⁷



User vs nonuser. Intent-to-treat analyses compared the assigned conditions. However, because CHESS use was self-selected and available at any time whereas mentor calls were scheduled and initiated by another person, the proportion actually using the interventions was quite different.

Since a participant assigned access to CHESS had to select the URL, even a single entry to the system was counted as use. Of 198 participants assigned to either the CHESS or CHESS+Mentor conditions, 43 (22%) never logged in and were classified as nonusers.

Because the mentor scheduled calls and attempted repeatedly to complete scheduled calls, the patient was in a reactive position, and the decision not to use the mentor’s services could come at the earliest at the end of a first completed call. However, after examining call notes and consulting with the mentors, it was clear that opting not to receive mentoring typically occurred at the second call. Furthermore, much (though not all) of the first call was typically taken up with getting acquainted and scheduling issues, so that defining “nonuse” as 2 or fewer completed calls was most faithful to what actually happened. Of 202 participants assigned access to a mentor, 16 (8%) were thus defined as nonusers.

Results

Overall, the participants were about 60 years of age and had some college education and middle-class incomes (Table 1). Only about 10% were minorities or lived alone, and their comfort using computers and the Internet was at or above the “quite comfortable” level. None of groups differed significantly from any other.

The 2 primary hypotheses of the study were that participants in the combined condition would manifest higher outcome scores than those with either intervention alone. Table 2 displays group means at 3 posttest intervals, controlling for theoretically chosen covariates (age, education, and minority status) and pretest levels of the dependent variable. The table also summarizes tests examining the hypotheses and the comparison of CHESS and Mentor conditions. The 4 quality-of-life scores appear first, followed by 5 more specific outcomes that are perhaps more proximal effects of these interventions.

Discussion

We used a randomized control design to test whether combining computer-based and human interventions would provide greater benefits to prostate cancer patients than either alone, as previous research had shown for breast cancer patients.¹⁸ The computer-based resource was CHESS, a repeatedly evaluated integrated system combining information, social support, and interactive tools to help patients manage their response to disease. The human cancer information mentor intervention combined the expertise of NCI’s Cancer Information Service with the repeated contact more typical of peer mentoring. Previous research with breast cancer patients had shown both interventions to provide greater information, support, and quality-of-life benefits than Internet access alone.¹⁴ This study also compared outcomes obtained by the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, but without predicting a direction of difference.

Tests at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after intervention found instances in which prostate cancer patients assigned to the combined CHESS+Mentor condition experienced more positive quality of life or other outcomes than those assigned to CHESS or Mentor alone, but those differences were scattered rather than consistent. In the direct comparisons of the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, significance was even rarer, but outcome scores tended to be higher in the Mentor condition than in the CHESS condition.

We noted that differential uptake of the 2 interventions (92% for Mentor vs 78% for CHESS) made interpreting the intent-to-treat analyses problematic, as the mentor’s control of the call schedule meant that far more patients in that condition actually received at least some intervention than in the CHESS condition, where patients used or did not use CHESS entirely at their own volition. This could have biased results in several ways, such as by underestimating the efficacy of the CHESS condition alone and thus inflating the contrast between CHESS alone and CHESS+Mentor. Or the combined condition might have been less different than the Mentor-only condition than intended, thus making for a conservative test of that comparison. However, post hoc analyses of only those participants who had actually used their assigned interventions (and this led to some reclassification of those originally assigned to the CHESS+Mentor condition) produced results that were little different than the intent-to-treat analysis.

Thus, although the combined condition produced some small advantages over either intervention alone, these advantages did not live up to expectations or to previous experience with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ We expected the mentor to be able to reinforce and help interpret what the participants learned from CHESS and their clinicians, and also to advise and direct these patients to be much more effective users of CHESS and other resources. Similarly, we expected that CHESS would make patients much better prepared for mentoring, so that instead of dealing with routine information matters, the mentor could go into greater detail or deal with more complex issues. Their combined effect should have been much larger than each alone, and that was not the case. Perhaps from the prostate cancer patients’ perspective, the 2 interventions seemed to offer similar resources, and a patient benefitted from one or the other but expected no additional gain from attending to both.

The 2 interventions themselves seemed nearly equally effective. The Mentor intervention was significantly stronger than CHESS in only 1 of 27 tests in the intent-to-treat analysis and 2 in the analysis limited to intervention users.

These results for prostate cancer patients are somewhat weaker than those previously reported with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ It is possible that prostate cancer patients (or men in general) are less inclined to seek health information, support, and health self-management than breast cancer patients (or women in general), perhaps because many men perceive decision-making to end with initial treatment, whereas women typically deal with follow-up treatments as well. Use of CHESS and the mentor was modestly lower for the men here than for the women in the previous studies. It is also possible that the CHESS Prostate Cancer module was not as good as the Breast Cancer module, although we are doubtful of that, given the additional tools and improvements added here in response to quite good focus group participants.²²It may also be true that as time goes on, the relative advantage of these interventions over support generally available over the Internet is simply waning – other websites are getting richer and more sophisticated, and users are getting better at searching them out (and avoiding weak or commercially motivated sites).

Although these interventions were experienced by prostate cancer patients in their homes in natural and familiar ways, any experimental manipulation must acknowledge possible problems with external validity. More important here, our recruitment procedures may have produced self-selection to enter or not enter the study in 2 ways that limit its applicability. First, although we thought that offering Internet access to all participants would make participation more likely, the most frequent reason men gave in declining to join the study was “not a computer person.” Our participants were certainly very comfortable with computers and the Internet, and most used them frequently even before the study. Second, it seems that, except for their prostate cancer, our sample was healthy in other respects, as indicated by the low number of other health care visits or surgeries/hospitalization they reported (and “overwhelmed” and “too busy,” 2 common reasons for declining study participations could also be coming from men with more comorbidities). Thus, our sample was probably more computer literate and healthier than the general population of prostate cancer patients.

Nonetheless, for policymakers deciding what information and support interventions to put in place for prostate cancer patients (or more generally for other cancer patients as well), these results have 2 implications. First, since the combination of the mentor and CHESS produced only small advantages over either alone, the extra effort of doing both seems clearly unwarranted for prostate cancer patients. The somewhat larger advantage of the combined intervention shown for breast cancer patients in previous studiesmight warrant using the combination in some circumstances, but even that is not clear-cut.

Finding that CHESS and the cancer information mentor separately provided essentially equal benefits might seem to suggest that they can be regarded as alternatives. However, computer-based services can be provided much more cheaply and scaled up far more readily than services dependent on one-on-one contacts by a highly trained professional. This may direct health care decision makers first toward computer-based services.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in men. ¹ Treatment choices for prostate cancer are perhaps more varied than for many other cancers, with surgery, external beam radiation therapy, and brachytherapy all widely used, a number of adjuvant and nonstandard therapy options available, as well as the possibility of not immediately treating the cancer – the “active surveillance” option.

Biochemical failure rates do not differ between the 3 main treatments,² but each exposes patients to the risk of side effects, including impotence, incontinence, rectal injury, and operative mortality. Recovery can be gradual and will not always involve a return to baseline functioning.³ Quality-of-life comparisons observed covariate-controlled decreases in varying specific aspects of quality of life for each of the treatments.⁴

Surgery, brachytherapy, and external beam radiation therapy have each shown advantages over other treatments on at least some specific aspect, but disadvantages on others.⁴ Ongoing surveillance of a cancer left in place has become a more common option in part because of the disadvantages of traditional treatment and because of the growing recognition that sensitive diagnosis techniques often locate cancers that might not be life threatening. Recent reviews and reasonably long-term trials portray active surveillance as a valid alternative to surgery and radiation in many cases, with little difference in life expectancy and cancer-related quality of life, and possibly some reduction in health system cost.^5-7

Prostate cancer patients cope with these uncertainties and decisions in many ways,⁸ often using multiple coping behaviors,⁹ but coping almost always includes seeking information and social support, as well as active problem-solving, to make informed treatment decisions consistent with their values.

Unfortunately, prostate patients often do not receive or use needed information. McGregor¹⁰ reported that patients were aware of their incomplete understanding of their disease and treatment options. Findings from several studies suggest that patients often perceive that clinicians inform them about the disease and treatment options but then send them home unprepared to deal with such things as incontinence or difficulties with sexual functioning.¹¹

Similarly, previous research demonstrates the benefits of social support for prostate cancer patients who receive it, but also that overall they are underserved.^12,13 Male cancer patients are generally far less likely to seek support and health information than are female patients. And when patients with prostate cancer do participate in online cancer support groups, they are more likely to exchange information, whereas breast cancer patients provide support for each other.¹⁴

Mentoring

Some responses to these knowledge and support gaps pair newly diagnosed patients with survivors willing to be a guide, coach, and a source of information, as in the American Cancer Society’s (ACS’s) Man-to-Man support groups.¹⁵ Peer mentors may have a sophisticated level of understanding from their own experiences with medical literature and the health care system, but this cannot be assumed. Another mentoring model is expert-based, exemplified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) cancer information specialist at the Cancer Information Service (CIS) and a similar system at the ACS. These telephone services allow for responsiveness to the caller’s needs, existing knowledge, and the caller’s readiness for information. The CIS specialist can also introduce important information the caller might not have known to ask about.¹⁶

However, not all problems presented by callers can be solved in a single conversation. Callers are encouraged to call back with additional questions or when their situation changes, but speaking with the same specialist is not facilitated, so it is hard for a second call to build upon the first. Combining the expertise of the cancer information specialist with the ongoing and proactive contact and support typical of the lay guide/mentor/navigator could be more effective. Here a CIS-trained information specialist called prostate patients multiple times over the intervention period to help them deal with information seeking and interpretation. In a previous study with breast cancer patients, a mentor of this sort improved patient information competence and emotional processing.¹⁷

Interactive resources

Online resources allow cancer patients self-paced and self-directed access to information and support anonymously and at any time. However, this can be more complicated than it might at first seem. With the complexities of the prostate cancer diagnosis, the multiple treatment options, and the uncertain but potentially serious effects of the treatments themselves, the amount of potentially relevant information is quite large. Then, because individuals will value differentially the attributes of treatments, their consequences, or even notions of risk and gain, a system must be able to respond appropriately to a range of very different people. Beyond this, as prostate cancer patients move from the shock of a cancer diagnosis to the problems of interpreting its details, to making treatment decisions, to dealing with problems of recovery, and then re-establishing what is a “new normal” for them, an individual’s demands on a system vary as well. Comprehensive and integrated systems of services meet the varying needs of their users at different times and different situations.^18,19 The systems approach not only makes it far easier for users to find what they need, it may also encourage them to see connections between physical, emotional, and social aspects of their illness. Versions of the system used in the present study – CHESS, or Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System – have been effective supporting patients with AIDS and breast and lung cancers, and teens with asthma.^16,20

Study goals and hypotheses

Given the success of the 2 aforementioned approaches, we wanted to compare how CHESS and ongoing contact with a human cancer information mentor in patients with prostate cancer would affect both several general aspects of quality of life and 1 specific to prostate cancer. We also examined differences in the patients’ information competence, quality of life, and social support. There was no a priori expectation that one intervention would be superior to the other, but any differences found could be important to policy decisions, given their quite-different cost and scalability.

More importantly, the primary hypothesis of the study was that patients with access to both CHESS and a mentor would experience substantially better outcomes than those with access to either intervention alone, because each had the potential to enhance the other’s benefits. For example, a patient could read CHESS material and come to the mentor much better prepared. By referring the user to specific parts of CHESS for basic information, the mentor could use calls to address more complex issues, or help interpret and evaluate difficult issues. In addition, because CHESS provides the mentor information about changes in the patient’s treatments, symptoms, and CHESS use, in the combined condition the cancer information mentor can know much more about the patient than when working alone. We also expected that the mentor would stimulate the kind of diverse use of CHESS services we have found to be most effective for improving quality of life.²¹ A previous study of CHESS for women with breast cancer concluded that a combined condition benefitted patients more than either CHESS or a cancer mentor alone,¹⁷ and we sought to determine whether we would have similar results with men with prostate cancer.

Because both mentoring and CHESS have consistently produced positive quality of life effects on their own, compared to controls, there is no reasonable expectation that negative effects of a combined condition could occur and should be tested for. Thus, the study was powered for 1-tailed significance in the comparison between the combined condition and either intervention alone, a procedure used consistently in previous studies of CHESS components or combined conditions. However, since the research question comparing the 2 interventions alone had no such strong history it was tested 2-tailed.
 

Methods

Recruitment

Study recruitment was conducted from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 at the University of Wisconsin’s Paul P Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center in Madison, Hartford Hospital’s Helen and Harry Gray Cancer Center in Hartford, Connecticut, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

A total of 461 patients were invited to participate in the study. Of those patients, 147 declined to participate, 4 were excluded, and 310 were randomized to access to CHESS only, access to a human mentor only, or access to CHESS and a mentor (CHESS+Mentor) during the 6-month intervention period, which provided adequate power (>.80) for effects of moderate size (Figure 1). Randomization was done with a computer-generated list that site study managers accessed on a patient-by-patient basis, with experimental conditions blocked within sites.

Interventions

To provide an equal baseline, all of the participants were given access to the Internet, which is becoming a de facto standard for information access. Internet access charges were paid for all participants during the 6-month intervention period, and computers were loaned to those who did not have a personal computer. All of the participants were offered training on using the computer, particularly with Google search procedures so that they could access resources on prostate cancer.

Participants assigned to the CHESS or CHESS+Mentor conditions were also offered training in using CHESS (basically a guided tour), which typically took about 30 minutes on the telephone but was occasionally done in-person.

CHESS intervention. In creating CHESS for prostate cancer patients, a combination of patient needs assessments, focus groups with patients and family members, and clinician expertise helped us identify the needs, coping mechanisms, and relevant medical information to help patients respond to the disease. An article describing development of the CHESS Prostate Cancer Module²² presents how those different services address patient needs for information, communication, and support, or build skills.

Most of these services were present in CHESS for other diseases, but several were newly created to meet needs of prostate cancer patients and partners, such as a decision map tool and a module on managing sexual problems.²² Also, patients expressed frustration at being overwhelmed by the volume of information and said they would prefer to focus only on what was most relevant, so we created an alternative navigation structure on the CHESS homepage. Using terms suggested by focus groups of prostate cancer survivors and their spouses, we devised a navigation structure called Step-by-Step that identified 6 typical sequential steps of men’s experience with prostate cancer. Clicking on a step would take a patient to a menu focused on actions and considerations specific to that disease step, links to information most relevant at that step, and suggested questions to ask oneself and one’s doctor.

Mentor intervention. The cancer information mentor who made most of the calls to patients was an experienced information specialist with the Cancer Information Service and had served as the expert for the CHESS Ask an Expert service for 6 years. She was highly knowledgeable about prostate cancer and patient information needs. Her additional training for this study focused on taking advantage of repeated contacts with the participants and how to set limits to avoid any semblance of psychological counseling. At recruitment, we made clear that a male mentor was also available if the participant would prefer to discuss sensitive topics with another man. The male mentor was experienced in the Man-to-Man program and received additional training for this role, but he was used for only 1% of all contacts.

During calls, the mentor had Internet access to a range of NCI, ACS, and other resources. She could help interpret information the participant already possessed as well as refer him to other public resources, including those on the Internet. CHESS software designers created an additional interface for the mentor that handled call scheduling and allowed her to record the topics of conversations, her responses and recommendations, and her overall ratings of patient preparedness and satisfaction. Using this interface allowed the mentor to quickly review a participant’s status and focus the conversation on issues raised by past conversations or scheduled treatment events. The mentor calls were audiorecorded and reviewed frequently by the project director during the early months of intervention and less frequently thereafter to ensure adherence to the protocol.

The mentor telephoned weekly during the first month of intervention, then twice during the second month, and once a month during the final 4 months of the intervention (ie, 10 scheduled calls, though patients could also initiate additional calls). Calls were scheduled through a combination of telephone contact and e-mail according to the patient’s preference. Call length ranged from 5 minutes to an hour, with the average about 12 minutes (the first call tended to be considerably longer, and was scheduled for 45 minutes). About 10%-15% of participants in the Mentor conditions initiated calls to the mentor to obtain additional support, and about 15% of scheduled calls in fact took place as e-mail exchanges. A few calls were missed because of scheduling difficulties, and some participants stopped scheduling the last few calls, but the average number of full calls or e-mails was 6.41 per participant.

CHESS+Mentor intervention. For the CHESS+Mentor condition, the interactions and resources used were similar to those of the Mentor-only condition, but the interface also provided the mentor with a summary of the participant’s recent CHESS use and any concerns reported to CHESS, which helped the mentor assess knowledge and make tailored recommendations. The mentor could also refer participants to specific resources within CHESS, aided by knowledge of what parts of CHESS had or had not been used.

Assessment methods

Patients were given surveys at the baseline visit to complete and mail back to research staff before randomization. Follow-up surveys were mailed to patients at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks post intervention access, and patients returned the surveys by mail. Patient withdrawal rates were about 3%.

Measures

Outcomes. This study included 4 measures of quality of life (an average of relevant portions of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life (WHOQOL) measure, Emotional and Functional Well-being, and a prostate-cancer specific index, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). We also tested group differences on 5 more specific outcomes that were likely to be proximal rather than distal effects of the interventions: Cancer Information Competence, Health care Competence, Social Support, Bonding (with other patients), and Positive Coping.



Quality of life. Quality of life was measured by combining the psychological, social, and overall dimensions of the WHOQOL measures.²³ Each of the 11 items was assessed with a 5-point scale, and the mean of those answers was the overall score.



Emotional well-being. Respondents answered 6 items of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Prostate (FACT-P)²⁴ describing emotional aspects of reactions to cancer.



Functional well-being. Respondents indicated how often they experienced each of the seven functional well-being subscale items of the FACT-Prostate.²⁴



Prostate cancer patient functioning. We used the EPIC to measure of 3 of 4 domains of prostate cancer patient functioning: urinary, bowel, and sexual (omitting hormonal).²⁵ The EPIC measures frequency and subjective degree of being a problem of several aspects in each domain. We then summed scores across the domains and transformed linearly to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores representing better functioning.



Cancer information competence. Five cancer information competence items, measured on a 5-point scale, assessed a participant’s perception about whether he could find and effectively and use health information, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Social support. Six 5-point social support items assessed the informational and emotional support provided by friends, family, coworkers, and others, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Health care competence. Five 5-point health care competence items assessed a patient’s comfort and activation level dealing with physicians and health care situations, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Positive coping. Coping strategies were measured with the Brief Cope, a shorter version of the original 60-item COPE scale.²⁶ Positive coping strategy, a predictor of positive adaptation in numerous coping contexts, was measured with the mean score of 4 scales (8 items in all): active coping, planning, positive reframing, and humor.



Bonding. Bonding with other prostate cancer patients was measured with five 5-point items about how frequently participants connected with and got information and support from other men with prostate cancer.²⁷



User vs nonuser. Intent-to-treat analyses compared the assigned conditions. However, because CHESS use was self-selected and available at any time whereas mentor calls were scheduled and initiated by another person, the proportion actually using the interventions was quite different.

Since a participant assigned access to CHESS had to select the URL, even a single entry to the system was counted as use. Of 198 participants assigned to either the CHESS or CHESS+Mentor conditions, 43 (22%) never logged in and were classified as nonusers.

Because the mentor scheduled calls and attempted repeatedly to complete scheduled calls, the patient was in a reactive position, and the decision not to use the mentor’s services could come at the earliest at the end of a first completed call. However, after examining call notes and consulting with the mentors, it was clear that opting not to receive mentoring typically occurred at the second call. Furthermore, much (though not all) of the first call was typically taken up with getting acquainted and scheduling issues, so that defining “nonuse” as 2 or fewer completed calls was most faithful to what actually happened. Of 202 participants assigned access to a mentor, 16 (8%) were thus defined as nonusers.

Results

Overall, the participants were about 60 years of age and had some college education and middle-class incomes (Table 1). Only about 10% were minorities or lived alone, and their comfort using computers and the Internet was at or above the “quite comfortable” level. None of groups differed significantly from any other.

The 2 primary hypotheses of the study were that participants in the combined condition would manifest higher outcome scores than those with either intervention alone. Table 2 displays group means at 3 posttest intervals, controlling for theoretically chosen covariates (age, education, and minority status) and pretest levels of the dependent variable. The table also summarizes tests examining the hypotheses and the comparison of CHESS and Mentor conditions. The 4 quality-of-life scores appear first, followed by 5 more specific outcomes that are perhaps more proximal effects of these interventions.

Discussion

We used a randomized control design to test whether combining computer-based and human interventions would provide greater benefits to prostate cancer patients than either alone, as previous research had shown for breast cancer patients.¹⁸ The computer-based resource was CHESS, a repeatedly evaluated integrated system combining information, social support, and interactive tools to help patients manage their response to disease. The human cancer information mentor intervention combined the expertise of NCI’s Cancer Information Service with the repeated contact more typical of peer mentoring. Previous research with breast cancer patients had shown both interventions to provide greater information, support, and quality-of-life benefits than Internet access alone.¹⁴ This study also compared outcomes obtained by the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, but without predicting a direction of difference.

Tests at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after intervention found instances in which prostate cancer patients assigned to the combined CHESS+Mentor condition experienced more positive quality of life or other outcomes than those assigned to CHESS or Mentor alone, but those differences were scattered rather than consistent. In the direct comparisons of the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, significance was even rarer, but outcome scores tended to be higher in the Mentor condition than in the CHESS condition.

We noted that differential uptake of the 2 interventions (92% for Mentor vs 78% for CHESS) made interpreting the intent-to-treat analyses problematic, as the mentor’s control of the call schedule meant that far more patients in that condition actually received at least some intervention than in the CHESS condition, where patients used or did not use CHESS entirely at their own volition. This could have biased results in several ways, such as by underestimating the efficacy of the CHESS condition alone and thus inflating the contrast between CHESS alone and CHESS+Mentor. Or the combined condition might have been less different than the Mentor-only condition than intended, thus making for a conservative test of that comparison. However, post hoc analyses of only those participants who had actually used their assigned interventions (and this led to some reclassification of those originally assigned to the CHESS+Mentor condition) produced results that were little different than the intent-to-treat analysis.

Thus, although the combined condition produced some small advantages over either intervention alone, these advantages did not live up to expectations or to previous experience with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ We expected the mentor to be able to reinforce and help interpret what the participants learned from CHESS and their clinicians, and also to advise and direct these patients to be much more effective users of CHESS and other resources. Similarly, we expected that CHESS would make patients much better prepared for mentoring, so that instead of dealing with routine information matters, the mentor could go into greater detail or deal with more complex issues. Their combined effect should have been much larger than each alone, and that was not the case. Perhaps from the prostate cancer patients’ perspective, the 2 interventions seemed to offer similar resources, and a patient benefitted from one or the other but expected no additional gain from attending to both.

The 2 interventions themselves seemed nearly equally effective. The Mentor intervention was significantly stronger than CHESS in only 1 of 27 tests in the intent-to-treat analysis and 2 in the analysis limited to intervention users.

These results for prostate cancer patients are somewhat weaker than those previously reported with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ It is possible that prostate cancer patients (or men in general) are less inclined to seek health information, support, and health self-management than breast cancer patients (or women in general), perhaps because many men perceive decision-making to end with initial treatment, whereas women typically deal with follow-up treatments as well. Use of CHESS and the mentor was modestly lower for the men here than for the women in the previous studies. It is also possible that the CHESS Prostate Cancer module was not as good as the Breast Cancer module, although we are doubtful of that, given the additional tools and improvements added here in response to quite good focus group participants.²²It may also be true that as time goes on, the relative advantage of these interventions over support generally available over the Internet is simply waning – other websites are getting richer and more sophisticated, and users are getting better at searching them out (and avoiding weak or commercially motivated sites).

Although these interventions were experienced by prostate cancer patients in their homes in natural and familiar ways, any experimental manipulation must acknowledge possible problems with external validity. More important here, our recruitment procedures may have produced self-selection to enter or not enter the study in 2 ways that limit its applicability. First, although we thought that offering Internet access to all participants would make participation more likely, the most frequent reason men gave in declining to join the study was “not a computer person.” Our participants were certainly very comfortable with computers and the Internet, and most used them frequently even before the study. Second, it seems that, except for their prostate cancer, our sample was healthy in other respects, as indicated by the low number of other health care visits or surgeries/hospitalization they reported (and “overwhelmed” and “too busy,” 2 common reasons for declining study participations could also be coming from men with more comorbidities). Thus, our sample was probably more computer literate and healthier than the general population of prostate cancer patients.

Nonetheless, for policymakers deciding what information and support interventions to put in place for prostate cancer patients (or more generally for other cancer patients as well), these results have 2 implications. First, since the combination of the mentor and CHESS produced only small advantages over either alone, the extra effort of doing both seems clearly unwarranted for prostate cancer patients. The somewhat larger advantage of the combined intervention shown for breast cancer patients in previous studiesmight warrant using the combination in some circumstances, but even that is not clear-cut.

Finding that CHESS and the cancer information mentor separately provided essentially equal benefits might seem to suggest that they can be regarded as alternatives. However, computer-based services can be provided much more cheaply and scaled up far more readily than services dependent on one-on-one contacts by a highly trained professional. This may direct health care decision makers first toward computer-based services.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in men. ¹ Treatment choices for prostate cancer are perhaps more varied than for many other cancers, with surgery, external beam radiation therapy, and brachytherapy all widely used, a number of adjuvant and nonstandard therapy options available, as well as the possibility of not immediately treating the cancer – the “active surveillance” option.

Biochemical failure rates do not differ between the 3 main treatments,² but each exposes patients to the risk of side effects, including impotence, incontinence, rectal injury, and operative mortality. Recovery can be gradual and will not always involve a return to baseline functioning.³ Quality-of-life comparisons observed covariate-controlled decreases in varying specific aspects of quality of life for each of the treatments.⁴

Surgery, brachytherapy, and external beam radiation therapy have each shown advantages over other treatments on at least some specific aspect, but disadvantages on others.⁴ Ongoing surveillance of a cancer left in place has become a more common option in part because of the disadvantages of traditional treatment and because of the growing recognition that sensitive diagnosis techniques often locate cancers that might not be life threatening. Recent reviews and reasonably long-term trials portray active surveillance as a valid alternative to surgery and radiation in many cases, with little difference in life expectancy and cancer-related quality of life, and possibly some reduction in health system cost.^5-7

Prostate cancer patients cope with these uncertainties and decisions in many ways,⁸ often using multiple coping behaviors,⁹ but coping almost always includes seeking information and social support, as well as active problem-solving, to make informed treatment decisions consistent with their values.

Unfortunately, prostate patients often do not receive or use needed information. McGregor¹⁰ reported that patients were aware of their incomplete understanding of their disease and treatment options. Findings from several studies suggest that patients often perceive that clinicians inform them about the disease and treatment options but then send them home unprepared to deal with such things as incontinence or difficulties with sexual functioning.¹¹

Similarly, previous research demonstrates the benefits of social support for prostate cancer patients who receive it, but also that overall they are underserved.^12,13 Male cancer patients are generally far less likely to seek support and health information than are female patients. And when patients with prostate cancer do participate in online cancer support groups, they are more likely to exchange information, whereas breast cancer patients provide support for each other.¹⁴

Mentoring

Some responses to these knowledge and support gaps pair newly diagnosed patients with survivors willing to be a guide, coach, and a source of information, as in the American Cancer Society’s (ACS’s) Man-to-Man support groups.¹⁵ Peer mentors may have a sophisticated level of understanding from their own experiences with medical literature and the health care system, but this cannot be assumed. Another mentoring model is expert-based, exemplified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) cancer information specialist at the Cancer Information Service (CIS) and a similar system at the ACS. These telephone services allow for responsiveness to the caller’s needs, existing knowledge, and the caller’s readiness for information. The CIS specialist can also introduce important information the caller might not have known to ask about.¹⁶

However, not all problems presented by callers can be solved in a single conversation. Callers are encouraged to call back with additional questions or when their situation changes, but speaking with the same specialist is not facilitated, so it is hard for a second call to build upon the first. Combining the expertise of the cancer information specialist with the ongoing and proactive contact and support typical of the lay guide/mentor/navigator could be more effective. Here a CIS-trained information specialist called prostate patients multiple times over the intervention period to help them deal with information seeking and interpretation. In a previous study with breast cancer patients, a mentor of this sort improved patient information competence and emotional processing.¹⁷

Interactive resources

Online resources allow cancer patients self-paced and self-directed access to information and support anonymously and at any time. However, this can be more complicated than it might at first seem. With the complexities of the prostate cancer diagnosis, the multiple treatment options, and the uncertain but potentially serious effects of the treatments themselves, the amount of potentially relevant information is quite large. Then, because individuals will value differentially the attributes of treatments, their consequences, or even notions of risk and gain, a system must be able to respond appropriately to a range of very different people. Beyond this, as prostate cancer patients move from the shock of a cancer diagnosis to the problems of interpreting its details, to making treatment decisions, to dealing with problems of recovery, and then re-establishing what is a “new normal” for them, an individual’s demands on a system vary as well. Comprehensive and integrated systems of services meet the varying needs of their users at different times and different situations.^18,19 The systems approach not only makes it far easier for users to find what they need, it may also encourage them to see connections between physical, emotional, and social aspects of their illness. Versions of the system used in the present study – CHESS, or Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System – have been effective supporting patients with AIDS and breast and lung cancers, and teens with asthma.^16,20

Study goals and hypotheses

Given the success of the 2 aforementioned approaches, we wanted to compare how CHESS and ongoing contact with a human cancer information mentor in patients with prostate cancer would affect both several general aspects of quality of life and 1 specific to prostate cancer. We also examined differences in the patients’ information competence, quality of life, and social support. There was no a priori expectation that one intervention would be superior to the other, but any differences found could be important to policy decisions, given their quite-different cost and scalability.

More importantly, the primary hypothesis of the study was that patients with access to both CHESS and a mentor would experience substantially better outcomes than those with access to either intervention alone, because each had the potential to enhance the other’s benefits. For example, a patient could read CHESS material and come to the mentor much better prepared. By referring the user to specific parts of CHESS for basic information, the mentor could use calls to address more complex issues, or help interpret and evaluate difficult issues. In addition, because CHESS provides the mentor information about changes in the patient’s treatments, symptoms, and CHESS use, in the combined condition the cancer information mentor can know much more about the patient than when working alone. We also expected that the mentor would stimulate the kind of diverse use of CHESS services we have found to be most effective for improving quality of life.²¹ A previous study of CHESS for women with breast cancer concluded that a combined condition benefitted patients more than either CHESS or a cancer mentor alone,¹⁷ and we sought to determine whether we would have similar results with men with prostate cancer.

Because both mentoring and CHESS have consistently produced positive quality of life effects on their own, compared to controls, there is no reasonable expectation that negative effects of a combined condition could occur and should be tested for. Thus, the study was powered for 1-tailed significance in the comparison between the combined condition and either intervention alone, a procedure used consistently in previous studies of CHESS components or combined conditions. However, since the research question comparing the 2 interventions alone had no such strong history it was tested 2-tailed.
 

Methods

Recruitment

Study recruitment was conducted from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 at the University of Wisconsin’s Paul P Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center in Madison, Hartford Hospital’s Helen and Harry Gray Cancer Center in Hartford, Connecticut, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

A total of 461 patients were invited to participate in the study. Of those patients, 147 declined to participate, 4 were excluded, and 310 were randomized to access to CHESS only, access to a human mentor only, or access to CHESS and a mentor (CHESS+Mentor) during the 6-month intervention period, which provided adequate power (>.80) for effects of moderate size (Figure 1). Randomization was done with a computer-generated list that site study managers accessed on a patient-by-patient basis, with experimental conditions blocked within sites.

Interventions

To provide an equal baseline, all of the participants were given access to the Internet, which is becoming a de facto standard for information access. Internet access charges were paid for all participants during the 6-month intervention period, and computers were loaned to those who did not have a personal computer. All of the participants were offered training on using the computer, particularly with Google search procedures so that they could access resources on prostate cancer.

Participants assigned to the CHESS or CHESS+Mentor conditions were also offered training in using CHESS (basically a guided tour), which typically took about 30 minutes on the telephone but was occasionally done in-person.

CHESS intervention. In creating CHESS for prostate cancer patients, a combination of patient needs assessments, focus groups with patients and family members, and clinician expertise helped us identify the needs, coping mechanisms, and relevant medical information to help patients respond to the disease. An article describing development of the CHESS Prostate Cancer Module²² presents how those different services address patient needs for information, communication, and support, or build skills.

Most of these services were present in CHESS for other diseases, but several were newly created to meet needs of prostate cancer patients and partners, such as a decision map tool and a module on managing sexual problems.²² Also, patients expressed frustration at being overwhelmed by the volume of information and said they would prefer to focus only on what was most relevant, so we created an alternative navigation structure on the CHESS homepage. Using terms suggested by focus groups of prostate cancer survivors and their spouses, we devised a navigation structure called Step-by-Step that identified 6 typical sequential steps of men’s experience with prostate cancer. Clicking on a step would take a patient to a menu focused on actions and considerations specific to that disease step, links to information most relevant at that step, and suggested questions to ask oneself and one’s doctor.

Mentor intervention. The cancer information mentor who made most of the calls to patients was an experienced information specialist with the Cancer Information Service and had served as the expert for the CHESS Ask an Expert service for 6 years. She was highly knowledgeable about prostate cancer and patient information needs. Her additional training for this study focused on taking advantage of repeated contacts with the participants and how to set limits to avoid any semblance of psychological counseling. At recruitment, we made clear that a male mentor was also available if the participant would prefer to discuss sensitive topics with another man. The male mentor was experienced in the Man-to-Man program and received additional training for this role, but he was used for only 1% of all contacts.

During calls, the mentor had Internet access to a range of NCI, ACS, and other resources. She could help interpret information the participant already possessed as well as refer him to other public resources, including those on the Internet. CHESS software designers created an additional interface for the mentor that handled call scheduling and allowed her to record the topics of conversations, her responses and recommendations, and her overall ratings of patient preparedness and satisfaction. Using this interface allowed the mentor to quickly review a participant’s status and focus the conversation on issues raised by past conversations or scheduled treatment events. The mentor calls were audiorecorded and reviewed frequently by the project director during the early months of intervention and less frequently thereafter to ensure adherence to the protocol.

The mentor telephoned weekly during the first month of intervention, then twice during the second month, and once a month during the final 4 months of the intervention (ie, 10 scheduled calls, though patients could also initiate additional calls). Calls were scheduled through a combination of telephone contact and e-mail according to the patient’s preference. Call length ranged from 5 minutes to an hour, with the average about 12 minutes (the first call tended to be considerably longer, and was scheduled for 45 minutes). About 10%-15% of participants in the Mentor conditions initiated calls to the mentor to obtain additional support, and about 15% of scheduled calls in fact took place as e-mail exchanges. A few calls were missed because of scheduling difficulties, and some participants stopped scheduling the last few calls, but the average number of full calls or e-mails was 6.41 per participant.

CHESS+Mentor intervention. For the CHESS+Mentor condition, the interactions and resources used were similar to those of the Mentor-only condition, but the interface also provided the mentor with a summary of the participant’s recent CHESS use and any concerns reported to CHESS, which helped the mentor assess knowledge and make tailored recommendations. The mentor could also refer participants to specific resources within CHESS, aided by knowledge of what parts of CHESS had or had not been used.

Assessment methods

Patients were given surveys at the baseline visit to complete and mail back to research staff before randomization. Follow-up surveys were mailed to patients at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks post intervention access, and patients returned the surveys by mail. Patient withdrawal rates were about 3%.

Measures

Outcomes. This study included 4 measures of quality of life (an average of relevant portions of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life (WHOQOL) measure, Emotional and Functional Well-being, and a prostate-cancer specific index, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). We also tested group differences on 5 more specific outcomes that were likely to be proximal rather than distal effects of the interventions: Cancer Information Competence, Health care Competence, Social Support, Bonding (with other patients), and Positive Coping.



Quality of life. Quality of life was measured by combining the psychological, social, and overall dimensions of the WHOQOL measures.²³ Each of the 11 items was assessed with a 5-point scale, and the mean of those answers was the overall score.



Emotional well-being. Respondents answered 6 items of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Prostate (FACT-P)²⁴ describing emotional aspects of reactions to cancer.



Functional well-being. Respondents indicated how often they experienced each of the seven functional well-being subscale items of the FACT-Prostate.²⁴



Prostate cancer patient functioning. We used the EPIC to measure of 3 of 4 domains of prostate cancer patient functioning: urinary, bowel, and sexual (omitting hormonal).²⁵ The EPIC measures frequency and subjective degree of being a problem of several aspects in each domain. We then summed scores across the domains and transformed linearly to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores representing better functioning.



Cancer information competence. Five cancer information competence items, measured on a 5-point scale, assessed a participant’s perception about whether he could find and effectively and use health information, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Social support. Six 5-point social support items assessed the informational and emotional support provided by friends, family, coworkers, and others, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Health care competence. Five 5-point health care competence items assessed a patient’s comfort and activation level dealing with physicians and health care situations, and were summed to create a single score.²⁰



Positive coping. Coping strategies were measured with the Brief Cope, a shorter version of the original 60-item COPE scale.²⁶ Positive coping strategy, a predictor of positive adaptation in numerous coping contexts, was measured with the mean score of 4 scales (8 items in all): active coping, planning, positive reframing, and humor.



Bonding. Bonding with other prostate cancer patients was measured with five 5-point items about how frequently participants connected with and got information and support from other men with prostate cancer.²⁷



User vs nonuser. Intent-to-treat analyses compared the assigned conditions. However, because CHESS use was self-selected and available at any time whereas mentor calls were scheduled and initiated by another person, the proportion actually using the interventions was quite different.

Since a participant assigned access to CHESS had to select the URL, even a single entry to the system was counted as use. Of 198 participants assigned to either the CHESS or CHESS+Mentor conditions, 43 (22%) never logged in and were classified as nonusers.

Because the mentor scheduled calls and attempted repeatedly to complete scheduled calls, the patient was in a reactive position, and the decision not to use the mentor’s services could come at the earliest at the end of a first completed call. However, after examining call notes and consulting with the mentors, it was clear that opting not to receive mentoring typically occurred at the second call. Furthermore, much (though not all) of the first call was typically taken up with getting acquainted and scheduling issues, so that defining “nonuse” as 2 or fewer completed calls was most faithful to what actually happened. Of 202 participants assigned access to a mentor, 16 (8%) were thus defined as nonusers.

Results

Overall, the participants were about 60 years of age and had some college education and middle-class incomes (Table 1). Only about 10% were minorities or lived alone, and their comfort using computers and the Internet was at or above the “quite comfortable” level. None of groups differed significantly from any other.

The 2 primary hypotheses of the study were that participants in the combined condition would manifest higher outcome scores than those with either intervention alone. Table 2 displays group means at 3 posttest intervals, controlling for theoretically chosen covariates (age, education, and minority status) and pretest levels of the dependent variable. The table also summarizes tests examining the hypotheses and the comparison of CHESS and Mentor conditions. The 4 quality-of-life scores appear first, followed by 5 more specific outcomes that are perhaps more proximal effects of these interventions.

Discussion

We used a randomized control design to test whether combining computer-based and human interventions would provide greater benefits to prostate cancer patients than either alone, as previous research had shown for breast cancer patients.¹⁸ The computer-based resource was CHESS, a repeatedly evaluated integrated system combining information, social support, and interactive tools to help patients manage their response to disease. The human cancer information mentor intervention combined the expertise of NCI’s Cancer Information Service with the repeated contact more typical of peer mentoring. Previous research with breast cancer patients had shown both interventions to provide greater information, support, and quality-of-life benefits than Internet access alone.¹⁴ This study also compared outcomes obtained by the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, but without predicting a direction of difference.

Tests at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after intervention found instances in which prostate cancer patients assigned to the combined CHESS+Mentor condition experienced more positive quality of life or other outcomes than those assigned to CHESS or Mentor alone, but those differences were scattered rather than consistent. In the direct comparisons of the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, significance was even rarer, but outcome scores tended to be higher in the Mentor condition than in the CHESS condition.

We noted that differential uptake of the 2 interventions (92% for Mentor vs 78% for CHESS) made interpreting the intent-to-treat analyses problematic, as the mentor’s control of the call schedule meant that far more patients in that condition actually received at least some intervention than in the CHESS condition, where patients used or did not use CHESS entirely at their own volition. This could have biased results in several ways, such as by underestimating the efficacy of the CHESS condition alone and thus inflating the contrast between CHESS alone and CHESS+Mentor. Or the combined condition might have been less different than the Mentor-only condition than intended, thus making for a conservative test of that comparison. However, post hoc analyses of only those participants who had actually used their assigned interventions (and this led to some reclassification of those originally assigned to the CHESS+Mentor condition) produced results that were little different than the intent-to-treat analysis.

Thus, although the combined condition produced some small advantages over either intervention alone, these advantages did not live up to expectations or to previous experience with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ We expected the mentor to be able to reinforce and help interpret what the participants learned from CHESS and their clinicians, and also to advise and direct these patients to be much more effective users of CHESS and other resources. Similarly, we expected that CHESS would make patients much better prepared for mentoring, so that instead of dealing with routine information matters, the mentor could go into greater detail or deal with more complex issues. Their combined effect should have been much larger than each alone, and that was not the case. Perhaps from the prostate cancer patients’ perspective, the 2 interventions seemed to offer similar resources, and a patient benefitted from one or the other but expected no additional gain from attending to both.

The 2 interventions themselves seemed nearly equally effective. The Mentor intervention was significantly stronger than CHESS in only 1 of 27 tests in the intent-to-treat analysis and 2 in the analysis limited to intervention users.

These results for prostate cancer patients are somewhat weaker than those previously reported with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ It is possible that prostate cancer patients (or men in general) are less inclined to seek health information, support, and health self-management than breast cancer patients (or women in general), perhaps because many men perceive decision-making to end with initial treatment, whereas women typically deal with follow-up treatments as well. Use of CHESS and the mentor was modestly lower for the men here than for the women in the previous studies. It is also possible that the CHESS Prostate Cancer module was not as good as the Breast Cancer module, although we are doubtful of that, given the additional tools and improvements added here in response to quite good focus group participants.²²It may also be true that as time goes on, the relative advantage of these interventions over support generally available over the Internet is simply waning – other websites are getting richer and more sophisticated, and users are getting better at searching them out (and avoiding weak or commercially motivated sites).

Although these interventions were experienced by prostate cancer patients in their homes in natural and familiar ways, any experimental manipulation must acknowledge possible problems with external validity. More important here, our recruitment procedures may have produced self-selection to enter or not enter the study in 2 ways that limit its applicability. First, although we thought that offering Internet access to all participants would make participation more likely, the most frequent reason men gave in declining to join the study was “not a computer person.” Our participants were certainly very comfortable with computers and the Internet, and most used them frequently even before the study. Second, it seems that, except for their prostate cancer, our sample was healthy in other respects, as indicated by the low number of other health care visits or surgeries/hospitalization they reported (and “overwhelmed” and “too busy,” 2 common reasons for declining study participations could also be coming from men with more comorbidities). Thus, our sample was probably more computer literate and healthier than the general population of prostate cancer patients.

Nonetheless, for policymakers deciding what information and support interventions to put in place for prostate cancer patients (or more generally for other cancer patients as well), these results have 2 implications. First, since the combination of the mentor and CHESS produced only small advantages over either alone, the extra effort of doing both seems clearly unwarranted for prostate cancer patients. The somewhat larger advantage of the combined intervention shown for breast cancer patients in previous studiesmight warrant using the combination in some circumstances, but even that is not clear-cut.

Finding that CHESS and the cancer information mentor separately provided essentially equal benefits might seem to suggest that they can be regarded as alternatives. However, computer-based services can be provided much more cheaply and scaled up far more readily than services dependent on one-on-one contacts by a highly trained professional. This may direct health care decision makers first toward computer-based services.

Skin adnexal tumors (SAT) are rare tumors that make up about 1%-2% of all cutaneous malignancies. They represent a various group of benign and malignant tumors that arise from skin adnexal epithelial structures: hair follicle, pilosebaceous unit, and apocrine or eccrine sweat glands. Although this derivation provides a practical basis for classification, some tumors may exhibit a mixed or more than one line of differentiation, rendering precise classification of those neoplasms difficult, and such cases should be categorized according to prevailing phenotype. In this report, we present a patient with metastatic eccrine carcinoma. Clinical experience for metastatic disease treatment is derived from a few reports, and there are no universal treatment guidelines. Given the few reported cases and the absence of randomized clinical trials for these patients, it is important to collect clinical experiences.

Case presentation and summary

A 56-year-old African man presented with a 5-week history of multiple nontender subcutaneous skin nodules all over his body except for his palms and soles, and associated with generalized itching. He had a mass in the sole of his right foot 35 years previously in another country. The mass had recurred 15 years later and was excised again. The exact etiology of the mass was unknown to the patient. He had no other medical problems. He was on no medications and did not smoke, drink, or use recreational drugs.

His vital signs on admission were normal. Examination was significant for innumerable superficial skin nodules in the scalp, back, torso, and abdomen. The largest was in the neck and measured 4 x 2 cm. A firm right inguinal mass of 7 x 4 cm was palpable. An abdominal exam revealed large ascites but no organomegaly.

The results of laboratory tests were significant for hyponatremia 126 mEq/L (normal, 135-145), hypercalcemia of 12.2 mg/dL (8.5-10.5), with normal phosphorous of 2.5 mg/dL (2.5-4.5), parathyroid of 11.5 pg/ml (6-65), and low vitamin D level of <7 ng/ml (30-100). Other test results were: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), 4.36 ng/ml (0.00-2.99); alpha fetoprotein, 2.39 IU/ml (0.00-9.0); calcium 11.6 mg/dL (8.5-10.2); lactate dehydrogenase, 325 U/L (85-210); aspartate aminotransferase, 59 U/L (0-40); alanine aminotransferase 43 U/L (5-35); alkaline phosphatase, 65 u/L (50-120); albumin, 2.7 g/dL (3.8-5.2); white blood cell count, 14.1 k/uL (4.4-10.6); hemoglobin, 12.6 g/dL; and platelets, 339 k/uL (161-369).

A chest and abdomen computed-tomography scan on presentation showed presence of innumerable subcutaneous and intramuscular nodules throughout the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (Figure 1).

Discussion

Sweat gland carcinomas are very rare malignant tumors of the adnexal epithelial structures of the skin, sebaceous, hair follicle, apocrine or eccrine glands that were first described by Cornil in 1865.¹ They occur primarily in adult patients, with a peak incidence in fifth and sixth decades of life.^2,3 The etiology is unknown, but some cases have been reported to be a consequence of radiation therapy.⁴ They are almost always an incidental histologic diagnosis.^2,5 The tumors usually appear as single nodule, and multinodularity usually associated with both local and metastatic disease.⁶ There are no characteristic findings to suggest that a particular nodule may represent sweat gland carcinoma, and even if sweat gland tumor is suspected, benign counterparts are more common.

Eccrine carcinoma is the most aggressive among skin adnexal tumors. They can arise on the lower limbs, trunk, head and neck, scalp and ears, upper extremities, abdomen, and genital sites.⁷

The cells of eccrine sweat glands express low molecular weight keratin, epithelial membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, as well as S100 protein, smooth muscle actin, p63, calponin, cytokeratin 14, and bcl-2.⁸ Skin tumors with eccrine differentiation may stain for estrogen and progesterone, which has important clinical implications because those patients can be treated with hormonal therapy.⁹ Positivity for estrogen receptors does not differentiate cutaneous eccrine tumors from cutaneous metastases of breast cancers.^8,9 Androgen receptor evaluation in these cases can help distinguish between the two.¹⁰ Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) is expressed in 3.5% of skin adnexal tumors.¹¹

The molecular pathogenesis of malignant adnexal tumors is not clear, but overexpression of tumor suppressor protein p16 has been described as a common feature in eccrine carcinomas.¹²

Prognostic factors for sweat gland carcinoma are difficult to identify, because of the small number of reported cases. The likely prognostic factors include size, histological type, lymph node involvement, and presence of distant metastasis. Absent of lymph node involvement correlates with 10-year disease-free survival rate of 56%, which falls to 9% if nodes are involved.¹³

There are no uniform guidelines for the treatment sweat gland carcinomas, and the clinical experience described in the literature is the only source of available information.

The treatment of choice of all subtypes of localized sweat gland carcinomas is wide surgical excision with broad tumor margins, given the propensity for local recurrences along with regional lymph node dissection in the presence of clinically positive nodes. Prophylactic lymph node resection does not seem to improve survival or decrease recurrence rates.⁷ The use of adjuvant radiotherapy to prevent local recurrence also is not well established. One report suggested radiosensitivity of these tumors, and adjuvant radiation was therefore recommended in high-risk cases (ie, large tumors of 5 cm and positive surgical margins of 1 cm) and moderate to poorly differentiated tumors with lymphovascular invasion.¹⁴ Adjuvant radiation to the involved lymph node basin is suggested in the setting of extranodal extension or extensive involvement, that is, 4 lymph nodes.¹⁵ The role of lymphadenectomy has not been adequately addressed in the literature.

The role of chemotherapy in metastatic disease is not clear, but sweat gland carcinomas are considered chemoresistant (Table). Several combinations have been used with short-term responses. In one case treated with doxorubicin, mitomycin, vincristine, and 5-FU followed by maintenance therapy, the patient achieved a complete response that lasted for 16 months.¹⁶ In another report, the treatment response was 2 years with treatment consisted of anthracyclin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and bloemycin.¹⁷ Other combinations used in the literature include carboplatin and paclitaxel, which led to prolonged remission.¹⁴ Cisplatin and 5-FU, or cisplatin plus cetuximab have been reported but with discouraging results.¹⁸ Results to taxanes showed conflicting results.^19,20

Skin adnexal tumors (SAT) are rare tumors that make up about 1%-2% of all cutaneous malignancies. They represent a various group of benign and malignant tumors that arise from skin adnexal epithelial structures: hair follicle, pilosebaceous unit, and apocrine or eccrine sweat glands. Although this derivation provides a practical basis for classification, some tumors may exhibit a mixed or more than one line of differentiation, rendering precise classification of those neoplasms difficult, and such cases should be categorized according to prevailing phenotype. In this report, we present a patient with metastatic eccrine carcinoma. Clinical experience for metastatic disease treatment is derived from a few reports, and there are no universal treatment guidelines. Given the few reported cases and the absence of randomized clinical trials for these patients, it is important to collect clinical experiences.

Case presentation and summary

A 56-year-old African man presented with a 5-week history of multiple nontender subcutaneous skin nodules all over his body except for his palms and soles, and associated with generalized itching. He had a mass in the sole of his right foot 35 years previously in another country. The mass had recurred 15 years later and was excised again. The exact etiology of the mass was unknown to the patient. He had no other medical problems. He was on no medications and did not smoke, drink, or use recreational drugs.

His vital signs on admission were normal. Examination was significant for innumerable superficial skin nodules in the scalp, back, torso, and abdomen. The largest was in the neck and measured 4 x 2 cm. A firm right inguinal mass of 7 x 4 cm was palpable. An abdominal exam revealed large ascites but no organomegaly.

The results of laboratory tests were significant for hyponatremia 126 mEq/L (normal, 135-145), hypercalcemia of 12.2 mg/dL (8.5-10.5), with normal phosphorous of 2.5 mg/dL (2.5-4.5), parathyroid of 11.5 pg/ml (6-65), and low vitamin D level of <7 ng/ml (30-100). Other test results were: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), 4.36 ng/ml (0.00-2.99); alpha fetoprotein, 2.39 IU/ml (0.00-9.0); calcium 11.6 mg/dL (8.5-10.2); lactate dehydrogenase, 325 U/L (85-210); aspartate aminotransferase, 59 U/L (0-40); alanine aminotransferase 43 U/L (5-35); alkaline phosphatase, 65 u/L (50-120); albumin, 2.7 g/dL (3.8-5.2); white blood cell count, 14.1 k/uL (4.4-10.6); hemoglobin, 12.6 g/dL; and platelets, 339 k/uL (161-369).

A chest and abdomen computed-tomography scan on presentation showed presence of innumerable subcutaneous and intramuscular nodules throughout the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (Figure 1).

Discussion

Sweat gland carcinomas are very rare malignant tumors of the adnexal epithelial structures of the skin, sebaceous, hair follicle, apocrine or eccrine glands that were first described by Cornil in 1865.¹ They occur primarily in adult patients, with a peak incidence in fifth and sixth decades of life.^2,3 The etiology is unknown, but some cases have been reported to be a consequence of radiation therapy.⁴ They are almost always an incidental histologic diagnosis.^2,5 The tumors usually appear as single nodule, and multinodularity usually associated with both local and metastatic disease.⁶ There are no characteristic findings to suggest that a particular nodule may represent sweat gland carcinoma, and even if sweat gland tumor is suspected, benign counterparts are more common.

Eccrine carcinoma is the most aggressive among skin adnexal tumors. They can arise on the lower limbs, trunk, head and neck, scalp and ears, upper extremities, abdomen, and genital sites.⁷

The cells of eccrine sweat glands express low molecular weight keratin, epithelial membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, as well as S100 protein, smooth muscle actin, p63, calponin, cytokeratin 14, and bcl-2.⁸ Skin tumors with eccrine differentiation may stain for estrogen and progesterone, which has important clinical implications because those patients can be treated with hormonal therapy.⁹ Positivity for estrogen receptors does not differentiate cutaneous eccrine tumors from cutaneous metastases of breast cancers.^8,9 Androgen receptor evaluation in these cases can help distinguish between the two.¹⁰ Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) is expressed in 3.5% of skin adnexal tumors.¹¹

The molecular pathogenesis of malignant adnexal tumors is not clear, but overexpression of tumor suppressor protein p16 has been described as a common feature in eccrine carcinomas.¹²

Prognostic factors for sweat gland carcinoma are difficult to identify, because of the small number of reported cases. The likely prognostic factors include size, histological type, lymph node involvement, and presence of distant metastasis. Absent of lymph node involvement correlates with 10-year disease-free survival rate of 56%, which falls to 9% if nodes are involved.¹³

There are no uniform guidelines for the treatment sweat gland carcinomas, and the clinical experience described in the literature is the only source of available information.

The treatment of choice of all subtypes of localized sweat gland carcinomas is wide surgical excision with broad tumor margins, given the propensity for local recurrences along with regional lymph node dissection in the presence of clinically positive nodes. Prophylactic lymph node resection does not seem to improve survival or decrease recurrence rates.⁷ The use of adjuvant radiotherapy to prevent local recurrence also is not well established. One report suggested radiosensitivity of these tumors, and adjuvant radiation was therefore recommended in high-risk cases (ie, large tumors of 5 cm and positive surgical margins of 1 cm) and moderate to poorly differentiated tumors with lymphovascular invasion.¹⁴ Adjuvant radiation to the involved lymph node basin is suggested in the setting of extranodal extension or extensive involvement, that is, 4 lymph nodes.¹⁵ The role of lymphadenectomy has not been adequately addressed in the literature.

The role of chemotherapy in metastatic disease is not clear, but sweat gland carcinomas are considered chemoresistant (Table). Several combinations have been used with short-term responses. In one case treated with doxorubicin, mitomycin, vincristine, and 5-FU followed by maintenance therapy, the patient achieved a complete response that lasted for 16 months.¹⁶ In another report, the treatment response was 2 years with treatment consisted of anthracyclin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and bloemycin.¹⁷ Other combinations used in the literature include carboplatin and paclitaxel, which led to prolonged remission.¹⁴ Cisplatin and 5-FU, or cisplatin plus cetuximab have been reported but with discouraging results.¹⁸ Results to taxanes showed conflicting results.^19,20

Skin adnexal tumors (SAT) are rare tumors that make up about 1%-2% of all cutaneous malignancies. They represent a various group of benign and malignant tumors that arise from skin adnexal epithelial structures: hair follicle, pilosebaceous unit, and apocrine or eccrine sweat glands. Although this derivation provides a practical basis for classification, some tumors may exhibit a mixed or more than one line of differentiation, rendering precise classification of those neoplasms difficult, and such cases should be categorized according to prevailing phenotype. In this report, we present a patient with metastatic eccrine carcinoma. Clinical experience for metastatic disease treatment is derived from a few reports, and there are no universal treatment guidelines. Given the few reported cases and the absence of randomized clinical trials for these patients, it is important to collect clinical experiences.

Case presentation and summary

A 56-year-old African man presented with a 5-week history of multiple nontender subcutaneous skin nodules all over his body except for his palms and soles, and associated with generalized itching. He had a mass in the sole of his right foot 35 years previously in another country. The mass had recurred 15 years later and was excised again. The exact etiology of the mass was unknown to the patient. He had no other medical problems. He was on no medications and did not smoke, drink, or use recreational drugs.

His vital signs on admission were normal. Examination was significant for innumerable superficial skin nodules in the scalp, back, torso, and abdomen. The largest was in the neck and measured 4 x 2 cm. A firm right inguinal mass of 7 x 4 cm was palpable. An abdominal exam revealed large ascites but no organomegaly.

The results of laboratory tests were significant for hyponatremia 126 mEq/L (normal, 135-145), hypercalcemia of 12.2 mg/dL (8.5-10.5), with normal phosphorous of 2.5 mg/dL (2.5-4.5), parathyroid of 11.5 pg/ml (6-65), and low vitamin D level of <7 ng/ml (30-100). Other test results were: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), 4.36 ng/ml (0.00-2.99); alpha fetoprotein, 2.39 IU/ml (0.00-9.0); calcium 11.6 mg/dL (8.5-10.2); lactate dehydrogenase, 325 U/L (85-210); aspartate aminotransferase, 59 U/L (0-40); alanine aminotransferase 43 U/L (5-35); alkaline phosphatase, 65 u/L (50-120); albumin, 2.7 g/dL (3.8-5.2); white blood cell count, 14.1 k/uL (4.4-10.6); hemoglobin, 12.6 g/dL; and platelets, 339 k/uL (161-369).

A chest and abdomen computed-tomography scan on presentation showed presence of innumerable subcutaneous and intramuscular nodules throughout the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (Figure 1).

Discussion

Sweat gland carcinomas are very rare malignant tumors of the adnexal epithelial structures of the skin, sebaceous, hair follicle, apocrine or eccrine glands that were first described by Cornil in 1865.¹ They occur primarily in adult patients, with a peak incidence in fifth and sixth decades of life.^2,3 The etiology is unknown, but some cases have been reported to be a consequence of radiation therapy.⁴ They are almost always an incidental histologic diagnosis.^2,5 The tumors usually appear as single nodule, and multinodularity usually associated with both local and metastatic disease.⁶ There are no characteristic findings to suggest that a particular nodule may represent sweat gland carcinoma, and even if sweat gland tumor is suspected, benign counterparts are more common.

Eccrine carcinoma is the most aggressive among skin adnexal tumors. They can arise on the lower limbs, trunk, head and neck, scalp and ears, upper extremities, abdomen, and genital sites.⁷

The cells of eccrine sweat glands express low molecular weight keratin, epithelial membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, as well as S100 protein, smooth muscle actin, p63, calponin, cytokeratin 14, and bcl-2.⁸ Skin tumors with eccrine differentiation may stain for estrogen and progesterone, which has important clinical implications because those patients can be treated with hormonal therapy.⁹ Positivity for estrogen receptors does not differentiate cutaneous eccrine tumors from cutaneous metastases of breast cancers.^8,9 Androgen receptor evaluation in these cases can help distinguish between the two.¹⁰ Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) is expressed in 3.5% of skin adnexal tumors.¹¹

The molecular pathogenesis of malignant adnexal tumors is not clear, but overexpression of tumor suppressor protein p16 has been described as a common feature in eccrine carcinomas.¹²

Prognostic factors for sweat gland carcinoma are difficult to identify, because of the small number of reported cases. The likely prognostic factors include size, histological type, lymph node involvement, and presence of distant metastasis. Absent of lymph node involvement correlates with 10-year disease-free survival rate of 56%, which falls to 9% if nodes are involved.¹³

There are no uniform guidelines for the treatment sweat gland carcinomas, and the clinical experience described in the literature is the only source of available information.

The treatment of choice of all subtypes of localized sweat gland carcinomas is wide surgical excision with broad tumor margins, given the propensity for local recurrences along with regional lymph node dissection in the presence of clinically positive nodes. Prophylactic lymph node resection does not seem to improve survival or decrease recurrence rates.⁷ The use of adjuvant radiotherapy to prevent local recurrence also is not well established. One report suggested radiosensitivity of these tumors, and adjuvant radiation was therefore recommended in high-risk cases (ie, large tumors of 5 cm and positive surgical margins of 1 cm) and moderate to poorly differentiated tumors with lymphovascular invasion.¹⁴ Adjuvant radiation to the involved lymph node basin is suggested in the setting of extranodal extension or extensive involvement, that is, 4 lymph nodes.¹⁵ The role of lymphadenectomy has not been adequately addressed in the literature.

The role of chemotherapy in metastatic disease is not clear, but sweat gland carcinomas are considered chemoresistant (Table). Several combinations have been used with short-term responses. In one case treated with doxorubicin, mitomycin, vincristine, and 5-FU followed by maintenance therapy, the patient achieved a complete response that lasted for 16 months.¹⁶ In another report, the treatment response was 2 years with treatment consisted of anthracyclin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and bloemycin.¹⁷ Other combinations used in the literature include carboplatin and paclitaxel, which led to prolonged remission.¹⁴ Cisplatin and 5-FU, or cisplatin plus cetuximab have been reported but with discouraging results.¹⁸ Results to taxanes showed conflicting results.^19,20

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is characterized by the temperature at which the auto-antibody has the greatest avidity for the target red cell antigen, either warm or cold forms. It is detected by a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) also known as the direct Coombs test. DAT is used to determine if red cells have been coated in vivo with immunoglobulin, complement, or both.¹ Some causes of a positive DAT include hemolytic transfusion reactions, hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, AIHA, and drug-induced immune hemolysis.

Case presentation and summary

A 58-year-old woman from Brazil with past medical history only significant for cholecystectomy and cesarean section had been visiting in United States for 2 months when she presented to an outside hospital with fever, shortness of breath, and syncope that had resulted in a foot injury. She reported she had been feeling short of breath and had a nonproductive cough and malaise for about 2 weeks before presentation with sick contacts at home. On admission it was noted that she had a hemoglobin level of 7.7 g/dL (normal, 12.0-15.5 g/dL; MCV, 94 fL), total bilirubin of 2.14 mg/dL (normal, 0.2-1.0 mg/dL), and lactate dehydrogenase of 523 U/L (normal, 81-234 U/L). There were no signs of bleeding on her examination. Her DAT was positive and moderate red blood cell agglutination was reported. During the first admission at the outside hospital she was diagnosed with influenza A and completed a full course of oseltamivir (75 mg po twice daily for 5 days). A chest X-ray was negative for infiltrates and showed that the patient’s lung fields were clear. She was transfused 2 units of packed red blood cells with response in hemoglobin up to 9.8 g/dL. The patient was treated with dexamethasone (4 mg IV Q8) as an inpatient and was discharged on a prednisone taper (40 mg, with taper by 10 mg every 3 days) with hemoglobin of 8.1 g/dL.

The patient continued to have nonproductive cough, dyspnea, fevers, chills, and generalized weakness, when she returned to the same outside hospital’s emergency department 2 days after her discharge. At that time, it was noted that she had leucocytosis (white blood cell count, 34.6 x 10⁹ per L), a hemoglobin level of 6.8 g/dL, and her total bilirubin level was 6.9 mg/dL. Her hemodynamics were unstable and she was admitted to their intensive care unit. The results of a chest X-ray revealed right lung consolidation.

The day after this admission, her hemoglobin level fell to 4.7 g/dL, and she was transfused 2 units of packed red blood cells before being transferred to our hospital. A chest X-ray at our hospital confirmed a right lung infiltrate. Vancomycin (1,250 mg IV Q12), levaquin (750 mg IV Q24), and maxipime (1 g IV Q12) were initiated for pneumonia and the patient was transferred to our hospital’s intensive care unit. She was afebrile at 98.3°F, her pulse rate was 84 beats per minute, she was tachypneic with respiratory rate of 26 breaths per minute, her blood pressure was 98/51 mmHg, and she had an oxygen saturation of 99% on 2L oxygen via nasal cannula.

On physical examination she was noted to have scleral icterus and was in mild respiratory distress. A chest X-ray revealed a patchy opacity in the right mid to lower lung. Her initial complete blood panel revealed anemia, with hemoglobin, 6.3 g/dL; white blood cell count, 27 x 10⁹ per L; and platelets, 533 x 10⁹ per L. The patient was then transfused another 2 units of packed red blood cells. She was given intravenous hydration, acetaminophen, and albuterol nebulizer treatments as supportive care. She was provided with blankets to keep warm. In addition to her antibiotics, she was also given prednisone 70 mg for her respiratory symptoms.

Further tests revealed haptoglobin, <30 mg/dL (normal, 36-195 mg/dL); lactate dehydrogenase, 371 U/L (normal, 98-192 U/L); and complements C3, 90 mg/dL (normal, 79-152 mg/dL) and C4, <8 mg/dL (normal, 18-55 mg/dL). Her DAT was positive, and agglutination was seen on peripheral smear (Figure 1). This was her second positive DAT as she had positive one at the outside hospital initially. Her tests for mycoplasma pneumonia, the PCR and IgM, were negative, as were the Monospot for mononucleosis and the ANA for autoimmune disorders. Her cold agglutinin titer was 1:256 (normal, no agglutination <1:64). The patient’s repeat respiratory viral panel was negative given recent full treatment for her influenza A at the previous hospital. Her blood and urine cultures were negative.

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate her hemoglobin and reticulocyte trend during her admission at our hospital.

Discussion

The incidence of cold AIHA or cold agglutinin disease (CAD) occurs about 4 per 1 million people and commonly affects women more often than men.² The cause of CAD can be subdivided into primary, idiopathic, or secondary causes, which can include infections, malignancies, or benign diseases.^3,4 Primary CAD is a chronic disorder that is generally seen in older women. Secondary CAD can be associated with B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders, such as Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and infectious agents such as Mycoplasma pneumoniae and mononucleosis caused by Epstein-Barr virus.

Mild hemolysis or acrocyanosis may occur with exposure to cold. The blood smear in CAD demonstrates red blood cell agglutination or clumping, polychromasia, and an absence of spherocytosis. In general, most cases require no treatment, but cytotoxic agents or rituximab can be used to treat more severe cases. Appropriate treatment for infectious causes of CAD includes supportive care aimed at the underlying disease process. In addition, it is helpful to keep the patient warm. There is no role for steroid therapy in CAD unlike in warm AIHA. However, our patient was symptomatic from her pneumonia, so we added steroids to help with her pulmonary insult.

The patient had a cold agglutinin titer of 1:256. Titers of 1:32 or higher are considered elevated by this technique. Elevated titers are generally rarely seen except in primary atypical pneumonia due to either M. pneumoniae, influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, and adenovirus, and in certain hemolytic anemias. Low titers of cold agglutinins have been demonstrated in malaria, peripheral vascular disease, and common respiratory diseases.

Warm AIHA is caused by IgG antibody activities at body temperature or at 98.6°F. They may or may not bind complement and are removed from circulation by the spleen. Cold AIHA is due to IgM antibodies coating red cells at lower temperatures. They bind complement and lead to red blood cell destruction of agglutinated cells. If the antibody is active at temperatures approaching 98.6°F, clinically significant intravascular and sometimes extravascular complement-mediated hemolysis occur in the liver.⁵

The incidence of warm AIHA occurs about 10 per 1 million people and affects women twice often as men.² It can be primary or idiopathic, or associated with various underlying conditions, including autoimmune disorders, immunodeficiency syndromes, lymphoproliferative disorders, other malignancies, and certain drugs. In more severe cases, jaundice and splenomegaly may occur. The blood smear in warm AIHA demonstrates variable spherocytosis, polychromasia, and rare erythrophagocytosis. Treatment usually includes steroids, cytotoxic agents, and splenectomy in severe cases.

There have been few case reports describing influenza as a cause of cold agglutinin hemolytic anemia. Chen and colleagues reported a case of influenza A infection in a 22-month-old boy.⁶Schoindre and colleagues reported the case of a 60-year-old woman infected with influenza A H1N1 virus who died from CAD.⁷ Shizuma reported the case of a 67-year-old man with alcoholic cirrhosis who developed a mixed hemolytic anemia and was positive for influenza A.⁸Our patient presented with influenza A, which had been diagnosed by respiratory virus panel at a different hospital, and she was anemic at the time of presentation to the outside hospital, with a positive DAT test. She was treated for influenza A with a full course of osltamivir and then returned with complaints of worsening fatigue and was again noted to be anemic with the development of patchy opacities on chest X-ray. The patient was subsequently transferred to our hospital and remained anemic during the course of her treatment. She received supportive care for her underlying influenza A and had symptomatic improvement. She ultimately decided the she would like to pursue further treatment in her native country and was discharged.

In conclusion, this case represents a rare complication of a common illness. Few cases of influenza causing hemolytic anemia have been reported in the literature. There have been reports of oseltamivir causing hemolytic anemia, but our patient presented with evidence of hemolytic anemia before initiation of the medication. In all the aforementioned cases, the patients died as a result of comorbid conditions. Our patient was stable enough to be discharged from the hospital after treatment of her comorbid conditions.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank David Henry, MD, at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, for sharing this case and for his guidance during this patient’s treatment.

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is characterized by the temperature at which the auto-antibody has the greatest avidity for the target red cell antigen, either warm or cold forms. It is detected by a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) also known as the direct Coombs test. DAT is used to determine if red cells have been coated in vivo with immunoglobulin, complement, or both.¹ Some causes of a positive DAT include hemolytic transfusion reactions, hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, AIHA, and drug-induced immune hemolysis.

Case presentation and summary

A 58-year-old woman from Brazil with past medical history only significant for cholecystectomy and cesarean section had been visiting in United States for 2 months when she presented to an outside hospital with fever, shortness of breath, and syncope that had resulted in a foot injury. She reported she had been feeling short of breath and had a nonproductive cough and malaise for about 2 weeks before presentation with sick contacts at home. On admission it was noted that she had a hemoglobin level of 7.7 g/dL (normal, 12.0-15.5 g/dL; MCV, 94 fL), total bilirubin of 2.14 mg/dL (normal, 0.2-1.0 mg/dL), and lactate dehydrogenase of 523 U/L (normal, 81-234 U/L). There were no signs of bleeding on her examination. Her DAT was positive and moderate red blood cell agglutination was reported. During the first admission at the outside hospital she was diagnosed with influenza A and completed a full course of oseltamivir (75 mg po twice daily for 5 days). A chest X-ray was negative for infiltrates and showed that the patient’s lung fields were clear. She was transfused 2 units of packed red blood cells with response in hemoglobin up to 9.8 g/dL. The patient was treated with dexamethasone (4 mg IV Q8) as an inpatient and was discharged on a prednisone taper (40 mg, with taper by 10 mg every 3 days) with hemoglobin of 8.1 g/dL.

The patient continued to have nonproductive cough, dyspnea, fevers, chills, and generalized weakness, when she returned to the same outside hospital’s emergency department 2 days after her discharge. At that time, it was noted that she had leucocytosis (white blood cell count, 34.6 x 10⁹ per L), a hemoglobin level of 6.8 g/dL, and her total bilirubin level was 6.9 mg/dL. Her hemodynamics were unstable and she was admitted to their intensive care unit. The results of a chest X-ray revealed right lung consolidation.

The day after this admission, her hemoglobin level fell to 4.7 g/dL, and she was transfused 2 units of packed red blood cells before being transferred to our hospital. A chest X-ray at our hospital confirmed a right lung infiltrate. Vancomycin (1,250 mg IV Q12), levaquin (750 mg IV Q24), and maxipime (1 g IV Q12) were initiated for pneumonia and the patient was transferred to our hospital’s intensive care unit. She was afebrile at 98.3°F, her pulse rate was 84 beats per minute, she was tachypneic with respiratory rate of 26 breaths per minute, her blood pressure was 98/51 mmHg, and she had an oxygen saturation of 99% on 2L oxygen via nasal cannula.

On physical examination she was noted to have scleral icterus and was in mild respiratory distress. A chest X-ray revealed a patchy opacity in the right mid to lower lung. Her initial complete blood panel revealed anemia, with hemoglobin, 6.3 g/dL; white blood cell count, 27 x 10⁹ per L; and platelets, 533 x 10⁹ per L. The patient was then transfused another 2 units of packed red blood cells. She was given intravenous hydration, acetaminophen, and albuterol nebulizer treatments as supportive care. She was provided with blankets to keep warm. In addition to her antibiotics, she was also given prednisone 70 mg for her respiratory symptoms.

Further tests revealed haptoglobin, <30 mg/dL (normal, 36-195 mg/dL); lactate dehydrogenase, 371 U/L (normal, 98-192 U/L); and complements C3, 90 mg/dL (normal, 79-152 mg/dL) and C4, <8 mg/dL (normal, 18-55 mg/dL). Her DAT was positive, and agglutination was seen on peripheral smear (Figure 1). This was her second positive DAT as she had positive one at the outside hospital initially. Her tests for mycoplasma pneumonia, the PCR and IgM, were negative, as were the Monospot for mononucleosis and the ANA for autoimmune disorders. Her cold agglutinin titer was 1:256 (normal, no agglutination <1:64). The patient’s repeat respiratory viral panel was negative given recent full treatment for her influenza A at the previous hospital. Her blood and urine cultures were negative.

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate her hemoglobin and reticulocyte trend during her admission at our hospital.

Discussion

The incidence of cold AIHA or cold agglutinin disease (CAD) occurs about 4 per 1 million people and commonly affects women more often than men.² The cause of CAD can be subdivided into primary, idiopathic, or secondary causes, which can include infections, malignancies, or benign diseases.^3,4 Primary CAD is a chronic disorder that is generally seen in older women. Secondary CAD can be associated with B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders, such as Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and infectious agents such as Mycoplasma pneumoniae and mononucleosis caused by Epstein-Barr virus.

Mild hemolysis or acrocyanosis may occur with exposure to cold. The blood smear in CAD demonstrates red blood cell agglutination or clumping, polychromasia, and an absence of spherocytosis. In general, most cases require no treatment, but cytotoxic agents or rituximab can be used to treat more severe cases. Appropriate treatment for infectious causes of CAD includes supportive care aimed at the underlying disease process. In addition, it is helpful to keep the patient warm. There is no role for steroid therapy in CAD unlike in warm AIHA. However, our patient was symptomatic from her pneumonia, so we added steroids to help with her pulmonary insult.

The patient had a cold agglutinin titer of 1:256. Titers of 1:32 or higher are considered elevated by this technique. Elevated titers are generally rarely seen except in primary atypical pneumonia due to either M. pneumoniae, influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, and adenovirus, and in certain hemolytic anemias. Low titers of cold agglutinins have been demonstrated in malaria, peripheral vascular disease, and common respiratory diseases.

Warm AIHA is caused by IgG antibody activities at body temperature or at 98.6°F. They may or may not bind complement and are removed from circulation by the spleen. Cold AIHA is due to IgM antibodies coating red cells at lower temperatures. They bind complement and lead to red blood cell destruction of agglutinated cells. If the antibody is active at temperatures approaching 98.6°F, clinically significant intravascular and sometimes extravascular complement-mediated hemolysis occur in the liver.⁵

The incidence of warm AIHA occurs about 10 per 1 million people and affects women twice often as men.² It can be primary or idiopathic, or associated with various underlying conditions, including autoimmune disorders, immunodeficiency syndromes, lymphoproliferative disorders, other malignancies, and certain drugs. In more severe cases, jaundice and splenomegaly may occur. The blood smear in warm AIHA demonstrates variable spherocytosis, polychromasia, and rare erythrophagocytosis. Treatment usually includes steroids, cytotoxic agents, and splenectomy in severe cases.

There have been few case reports describing influenza as a cause of cold agglutinin hemolytic anemia. Chen and colleagues reported a case of influenza A infection in a 22-month-old boy.⁶Schoindre and colleagues reported the case of a 60-year-old woman infected with influenza A H1N1 virus who died from CAD.⁷ Shizuma reported the case of a 67-year-old man with alcoholic cirrhosis who developed a mixed hemolytic anemia and was positive for influenza A.⁸Our patient presented with influenza A, which had been diagnosed by respiratory virus panel at a different hospital, and she was anemic at the time of presentation to the outside hospital, with a positive DAT test. She was treated for influenza A with a full course of osltamivir and then returned with complaints of worsening fatigue and was again noted to be anemic with the development of patchy opacities on chest X-ray. The patient was subsequently transferred to our hospital and remained anemic during the course of her treatment. She received supportive care for her underlying influenza A and had symptomatic improvement. She ultimately decided the she would like to pursue further treatment in her native country and was discharged.

In conclusion, this case represents a rare complication of a common illness. Few cases of influenza causing hemolytic anemia have been reported in the literature. There have been reports of oseltamivir causing hemolytic anemia, but our patient presented with evidence of hemolytic anemia before initiation of the medication. In all the aforementioned cases, the patients died as a result of comorbid conditions. Our patient was stable enough to be discharged from the hospital after treatment of her comorbid conditions.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank David Henry, MD, at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, for sharing this case and for his guidance during this patient’s treatment.

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is characterized by the temperature at which the auto-antibody has the greatest avidity for the target red cell antigen, either warm or cold forms. It is detected by a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) also known as the direct Coombs test. DAT is used to determine if red cells have been coated in vivo with immunoglobulin, complement, or both.¹ Some causes of a positive DAT include hemolytic transfusion reactions, hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, AIHA, and drug-induced immune hemolysis.

Case presentation and summary

A 58-year-old woman from Brazil with past medical history only significant for cholecystectomy and cesarean section had been visiting in United States for 2 months when she presented to an outside hospital with fever, shortness of breath, and syncope that had resulted in a foot injury. She reported she had been feeling short of breath and had a nonproductive cough and malaise for about 2 weeks before presentation with sick contacts at home. On admission it was noted that she had a hemoglobin level of 7.7 g/dL (normal, 12.0-15.5 g/dL; MCV, 94 fL), total bilirubin of 2.14 mg/dL (normal, 0.2-1.0 mg/dL), and lactate dehydrogenase of 523 U/L (normal, 81-234 U/L). There were no signs of bleeding on her examination. Her DAT was positive and moderate red blood cell agglutination was reported. During the first admission at the outside hospital she was diagnosed with influenza A and completed a full course of oseltamivir (75 mg po twice daily for 5 days). A chest X-ray was negative for infiltrates and showed that the patient’s lung fields were clear. She was transfused 2 units of packed red blood cells with response in hemoglobin up to 9.8 g/dL. The patient was treated with dexamethasone (4 mg IV Q8) as an inpatient and was discharged on a prednisone taper (40 mg, with taper by 10 mg every 3 days) with hemoglobin of 8.1 g/dL.

The patient continued to have nonproductive cough, dyspnea, fevers, chills, and generalized weakness, when she returned to the same outside hospital’s emergency department 2 days after her discharge. At that time, it was noted that she had leucocytosis (white blood cell count, 34.6 x 10⁹ per L), a hemoglobin level of 6.8 g/dL, and her total bilirubin level was 6.9 mg/dL. Her hemodynamics were unstable and she was admitted to their intensive care unit. The results of a chest X-ray revealed right lung consolidation.

The day after this admission, her hemoglobin level fell to 4.7 g/dL, and she was transfused 2 units of packed red blood cells before being transferred to our hospital. A chest X-ray at our hospital confirmed a right lung infiltrate. Vancomycin (1,250 mg IV Q12), levaquin (750 mg IV Q24), and maxipime (1 g IV Q12) were initiated for pneumonia and the patient was transferred to our hospital’s intensive care unit. She was afebrile at 98.3°F, her pulse rate was 84 beats per minute, she was tachypneic with respiratory rate of 26 breaths per minute, her blood pressure was 98/51 mmHg, and she had an oxygen saturation of 99% on 2L oxygen via nasal cannula.

On physical examination she was noted to have scleral icterus and was in mild respiratory distress. A chest X-ray revealed a patchy opacity in the right mid to lower lung. Her initial complete blood panel revealed anemia, with hemoglobin, 6.3 g/dL; white blood cell count, 27 x 10⁹ per L; and platelets, 533 x 10⁹ per L. The patient was then transfused another 2 units of packed red blood cells. She was given intravenous hydration, acetaminophen, and albuterol nebulizer treatments as supportive care. She was provided with blankets to keep warm. In addition to her antibiotics, she was also given prednisone 70 mg for her respiratory symptoms.

Further tests revealed haptoglobin, <30 mg/dL (normal, 36-195 mg/dL); lactate dehydrogenase, 371 U/L (normal, 98-192 U/L); and complements C3, 90 mg/dL (normal, 79-152 mg/dL) and C4, <8 mg/dL (normal, 18-55 mg/dL). Her DAT was positive, and agglutination was seen on peripheral smear (Figure 1). This was her second positive DAT as she had positive one at the outside hospital initially. Her tests for mycoplasma pneumonia, the PCR and IgM, were negative, as were the Monospot for mononucleosis and the ANA for autoimmune disorders. Her cold agglutinin titer was 1:256 (normal, no agglutination <1:64). The patient’s repeat respiratory viral panel was negative given recent full treatment for her influenza A at the previous hospital. Her blood and urine cultures were negative.

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate her hemoglobin and reticulocyte trend during her admission at our hospital.

Discussion

The incidence of cold AIHA or cold agglutinin disease (CAD) occurs about 4 per 1 million people and commonly affects women more often than men.² The cause of CAD can be subdivided into primary, idiopathic, or secondary causes, which can include infections, malignancies, or benign diseases.^3,4 Primary CAD is a chronic disorder that is generally seen in older women. Secondary CAD can be associated with B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders, such as Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and infectious agents such as Mycoplasma pneumoniae and mononucleosis caused by Epstein-Barr virus.

Mild hemolysis or acrocyanosis may occur with exposure to cold. The blood smear in CAD demonstrates red blood cell agglutination or clumping, polychromasia, and an absence of spherocytosis. In general, most cases require no treatment, but cytotoxic agents or rituximab can be used to treat more severe cases. Appropriate treatment for infectious causes of CAD includes supportive care aimed at the underlying disease process. In addition, it is helpful to keep the patient warm. There is no role for steroid therapy in CAD unlike in warm AIHA. However, our patient was symptomatic from her pneumonia, so we added steroids to help with her pulmonary insult.

The patient had a cold agglutinin titer of 1:256. Titers of 1:32 or higher are considered elevated by this technique. Elevated titers are generally rarely seen except in primary atypical pneumonia due to either M. pneumoniae, influenza A, influenza B, parainfluenza, and adenovirus, and in certain hemolytic anemias. Low titers of cold agglutinins have been demonstrated in malaria, peripheral vascular disease, and common respiratory diseases.

Warm AIHA is caused by IgG antibody activities at body temperature or at 98.6°F. They may or may not bind complement and are removed from circulation by the spleen. Cold AIHA is due to IgM antibodies coating red cells at lower temperatures. They bind complement and lead to red blood cell destruction of agglutinated cells. If the antibody is active at temperatures approaching 98.6°F, clinically significant intravascular and sometimes extravascular complement-mediated hemolysis occur in the liver.⁵

The incidence of warm AIHA occurs about 10 per 1 million people and affects women twice often as men.² It can be primary or idiopathic, or associated with various underlying conditions, including autoimmune disorders, immunodeficiency syndromes, lymphoproliferative disorders, other malignancies, and certain drugs. In more severe cases, jaundice and splenomegaly may occur. The blood smear in warm AIHA demonstrates variable spherocytosis, polychromasia, and rare erythrophagocytosis. Treatment usually includes steroids, cytotoxic agents, and splenectomy in severe cases.

There have been few case reports describing influenza as a cause of cold agglutinin hemolytic anemia. Chen and colleagues reported a case of influenza A infection in a 22-month-old boy.⁶Schoindre and colleagues reported the case of a 60-year-old woman infected with influenza A H1N1 virus who died from CAD.⁷ Shizuma reported the case of a 67-year-old man with alcoholic cirrhosis who developed a mixed hemolytic anemia and was positive for influenza A.⁸Our patient presented with influenza A, which had been diagnosed by respiratory virus panel at a different hospital, and she was anemic at the time of presentation to the outside hospital, with a positive DAT test. She was treated for influenza A with a full course of osltamivir and then returned with complaints of worsening fatigue and was again noted to be anemic with the development of patchy opacities on chest X-ray. The patient was subsequently transferred to our hospital and remained anemic during the course of her treatment. She received supportive care for her underlying influenza A and had symptomatic improvement. She ultimately decided the she would like to pursue further treatment in her native country and was discharged.

In conclusion, this case represents a rare complication of a common illness. Few cases of influenza causing hemolytic anemia have been reported in the literature. There have been reports of oseltamivir causing hemolytic anemia, but our patient presented with evidence of hemolytic anemia before initiation of the medication. In all the aforementioned cases, the patients died as a result of comorbid conditions. Our patient was stable enough to be discharged from the hospital after treatment of her comorbid conditions.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank David Henry, MD, at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, for sharing this case and for his guidance during this patient’s treatment.

The United States Food and Drug Administration’s approval earlier this year of pembrolizumab marks the first tumor agnostic indication for a cancer drug.^1,2 Accelerated approval was granted for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with any unresectable or metastatic solid tumor that displays mismatch repair deficiencies (dMMR) or high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and who have progressed after previous treatment and have no satisfactory alternatives. It is also approved specifically for patients with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer (CRC) that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitor that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand, PD-L1, restoring the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells and boosting the anti-tumor immune response. It is thought to be particularly effective in dMMR/MSI-H tumors because they have a high mutational load and therefore display an abundance of antigens on their surfaces to provoke an immune response.

Approval for the drug was based on the demonstration of durable responses in 149 patients with MSI-H or dMMR cancers across 5 uncontrolled, multicohort, multicenter, single-arm trials. In all, 90 of the patients had CRC, and the remaining 59 patients had 1 of 14 other cancer types that included endometrial, biliary, gastric or gastroesophageal, pancreatic, and breast cancers.

The United States Food and Drug Administration’s approval earlier this year of pembrolizumab marks the first tumor agnostic indication for a cancer drug.^1,2 Accelerated approval was granted for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with any unresectable or metastatic solid tumor that displays mismatch repair deficiencies (dMMR) or high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and who have progressed after previous treatment and have no satisfactory alternatives. It is also approved specifically for patients with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer (CRC) that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitor that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand, PD-L1, restoring the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells and boosting the anti-tumor immune response. It is thought to be particularly effective in dMMR/MSI-H tumors because they have a high mutational load and therefore display an abundance of antigens on their surfaces to provoke an immune response.

Approval for the drug was based on the demonstration of durable responses in 149 patients with MSI-H or dMMR cancers across 5 uncontrolled, multicohort, multicenter, single-arm trials. In all, 90 of the patients had CRC, and the remaining 59 patients had 1 of 14 other cancer types that included endometrial, biliary, gastric or gastroesophageal, pancreatic, and breast cancers.

The United States Food and Drug Administration’s approval earlier this year of pembrolizumab marks the first tumor agnostic indication for a cancer drug.^1,2 Accelerated approval was granted for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with any unresectable or metastatic solid tumor that displays mismatch repair deficiencies (dMMR) or high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and who have progressed after previous treatment and have no satisfactory alternatives. It is also approved specifically for patients with MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer (CRC) that has progressed after treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) receptor inhibitor that blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligand, PD-L1, restoring the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells and boosting the anti-tumor immune response. It is thought to be particularly effective in dMMR/MSI-H tumors because they have a high mutational load and therefore display an abundance of antigens on their surfaces to provoke an immune response.

Approval for the drug was based on the demonstration of durable responses in 149 patients with MSI-H or dMMR cancers across 5 uncontrolled, multicohort, multicenter, single-arm trials. In all, 90 of the patients had CRC, and the remaining 59 patients had 1 of 14 other cancer types that included endometrial, biliary, gastric or gastroesophageal, pancreatic, and breast cancers.

The accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor brigatinib, marked the fourth approved drug in this class.¹ The most recent approval expands the available treatment options for patients with metastatic ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is no longer responding to the first-line ALK inhibitor crizotinib. The FDA based its decision on the results of the phase 2 ALTA trial, in which a significant proportion of patients experienced tumor shrinkage.²

The pivotal trial was a noncomparative, 2-arm, open-label, multicenter study that was carried out during June 2014-September 2015 at 71 centers across 18 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC, disease progression while taking crizotinib, at least 1 measurable lesion, adequate organ and hematologic function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 (range, 0-5, where 0 means the patient is fully active, and 2, ambulatory and capable of all self-care but not able to carry out any work activities).

Patients were excluded from the trial if they had received previous ALK inhibitor therapy, other than crizotinib, or had received crizotinib within 3 days of the first dose of brigatinib, or they had received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or investigational drugs within 14 days or monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first dose of the study drug. Anyone with a history or the presence of pulmonary interstitial disease or drug-related pneumonitis or symptomatic central nervous system (CNS) metastases that were neurologically unstable or required an increasing dose of corticosteroids was also ineligible.

A total of 222 patients were randomized to receive one of two brigatinib doses, either 90 mg daily or 180 mg daily after a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (the latter to help mitigate pulmonary adverse events observed in previous studies). Randomization was stratified according to baseline brain metastases (present or absent) and best investigator-assessed response to crizotinib (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] vs other or unknown)

Chest and abdomen imaging by computed-tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast were performed to assess disease at screening and every 8 weeks through cycle 15, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Contrast-enhanced brain MRI was carried out at screening and repeated after baseline for the 68% of patients who had CNS metastases at the time of enrollment.

The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1), and secondary endpoints included CNS response, duration of response (DoR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively). ORRs for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 48% and 53%, respectively. Responses occurred quickly and were durable in both arms; after a median follow-up of 8 months, median DoR was 13.8 months for both doses. Among the patients with brain metastases, the intracranial response rates for the two doses were 42% and 67%, respectively, notable because of the poor ability of crizotinib to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Other secondary outcomes also favored the 180-mg dose. Investigator-assessed PFS for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 9.2 months and 12.9 months, respectively, and estimated 1-year OS was 71% and 80%, respectively, the latter representing a nonstatistically significant 43% reduction in the risk of death with the 180 mg dose. There were 4 confirmed CRs in the 180-mg arm and 1 in the 90-mg arm.

The safety of brigatinib was evaluated in 219 patients who received at least 1 dose of brigatinib. Treatment was discontinued in 8% of patients in the 180-mg arm and 3% in the 90-mg arm because of adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and headache, and visual disturbances also occurred. The most common serious AEs were pneumonia and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis.

The prescribing information details warnings and precautions about these and other potential toxicities, including hypertension, bradycardia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and pancreatic enzyme elevation, and hyperglycemia.³ Patients should be monitored for new or worsening respiratory symptoms, especially during the first week of initiating brigatinib treatment; blood pressure should be controlled before treatment initiation and monitored after 2 weeks and at least monthly thereafter; heart rate and blood pressure should be monitored frequently; patients should be advised to report any visual symptoms, or any unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness; CPK, lipase, and amylase levels should be monitored during treatment, and fasting glucose tested before starting treatment and periodically thereafter.

Brigatinib should be withheld in any patient with new or worsening respiratory symptoms, for grade 3 hypertension despite optimal antihypertensive therapy, for symptomatic bradycardia, for patients with new or worsening visual symptoms of grade 2 or above, for grade 3 or 4 CPK or pancreatic enzyme elevation, or if adequate hyperglycemia control cannot be achieved. Treatment should be permanently discontinued for grade 3 or 4 or recurrent interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, grade 4 or recurrent grade 3 hypertension, life-threatening bradycardia, and grade 4 visual disturbance.

Based on its mechanism of action, brigatinib can cause fetal harm and patients of reproductive potential should be advised of the risks and necessary precautions. Brigatinib is marketed as Alunbrig. It was discovered by Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc, which was acquired by Takeda in February 2017.

The accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor brigatinib, marked the fourth approved drug in this class.¹ The most recent approval expands the available treatment options for patients with metastatic ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is no longer responding to the first-line ALK inhibitor crizotinib. The FDA based its decision on the results of the phase 2 ALTA trial, in which a significant proportion of patients experienced tumor shrinkage.²

The pivotal trial was a noncomparative, 2-arm, open-label, multicenter study that was carried out during June 2014-September 2015 at 71 centers across 18 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC, disease progression while taking crizotinib, at least 1 measurable lesion, adequate organ and hematologic function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 (range, 0-5, where 0 means the patient is fully active, and 2, ambulatory and capable of all self-care but not able to carry out any work activities).

Patients were excluded from the trial if they had received previous ALK inhibitor therapy, other than crizotinib, or had received crizotinib within 3 days of the first dose of brigatinib, or they had received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or investigational drugs within 14 days or monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first dose of the study drug. Anyone with a history or the presence of pulmonary interstitial disease or drug-related pneumonitis or symptomatic central nervous system (CNS) metastases that were neurologically unstable or required an increasing dose of corticosteroids was also ineligible.

A total of 222 patients were randomized to receive one of two brigatinib doses, either 90 mg daily or 180 mg daily after a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (the latter to help mitigate pulmonary adverse events observed in previous studies). Randomization was stratified according to baseline brain metastases (present or absent) and best investigator-assessed response to crizotinib (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] vs other or unknown)

Chest and abdomen imaging by computed-tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast were performed to assess disease at screening and every 8 weeks through cycle 15, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Contrast-enhanced brain MRI was carried out at screening and repeated after baseline for the 68% of patients who had CNS metastases at the time of enrollment.

The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1), and secondary endpoints included CNS response, duration of response (DoR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively). ORRs for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 48% and 53%, respectively. Responses occurred quickly and were durable in both arms; after a median follow-up of 8 months, median DoR was 13.8 months for both doses. Among the patients with brain metastases, the intracranial response rates for the two doses were 42% and 67%, respectively, notable because of the poor ability of crizotinib to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Other secondary outcomes also favored the 180-mg dose. Investigator-assessed PFS for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 9.2 months and 12.9 months, respectively, and estimated 1-year OS was 71% and 80%, respectively, the latter representing a nonstatistically significant 43% reduction in the risk of death with the 180 mg dose. There were 4 confirmed CRs in the 180-mg arm and 1 in the 90-mg arm.

The safety of brigatinib was evaluated in 219 patients who received at least 1 dose of brigatinib. Treatment was discontinued in 8% of patients in the 180-mg arm and 3% in the 90-mg arm because of adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and headache, and visual disturbances also occurred. The most common serious AEs were pneumonia and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis.

The prescribing information details warnings and precautions about these and other potential toxicities, including hypertension, bradycardia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and pancreatic enzyme elevation, and hyperglycemia.³ Patients should be monitored for new or worsening respiratory symptoms, especially during the first week of initiating brigatinib treatment; blood pressure should be controlled before treatment initiation and monitored after 2 weeks and at least monthly thereafter; heart rate and blood pressure should be monitored frequently; patients should be advised to report any visual symptoms, or any unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness; CPK, lipase, and amylase levels should be monitored during treatment, and fasting glucose tested before starting treatment and periodically thereafter.

Brigatinib should be withheld in any patient with new or worsening respiratory symptoms, for grade 3 hypertension despite optimal antihypertensive therapy, for symptomatic bradycardia, for patients with new or worsening visual symptoms of grade 2 or above, for grade 3 or 4 CPK or pancreatic enzyme elevation, or if adequate hyperglycemia control cannot be achieved. Treatment should be permanently discontinued for grade 3 or 4 or recurrent interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, grade 4 or recurrent grade 3 hypertension, life-threatening bradycardia, and grade 4 visual disturbance.

Based on its mechanism of action, brigatinib can cause fetal harm and patients of reproductive potential should be advised of the risks and necessary precautions. Brigatinib is marketed as Alunbrig. It was discovered by Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc, which was acquired by Takeda in February 2017.

The accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor brigatinib, marked the fourth approved drug in this class.¹ The most recent approval expands the available treatment options for patients with metastatic ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease is no longer responding to the first-line ALK inhibitor crizotinib. The FDA based its decision on the results of the phase 2 ALTA trial, in which a significant proportion of patients experienced tumor shrinkage.²

The pivotal trial was a noncomparative, 2-arm, open-label, multicenter study that was carried out during June 2014-September 2015 at 71 centers across 18 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC, disease progression while taking crizotinib, at least 1 measurable lesion, adequate organ and hematologic function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 (range, 0-5, where 0 means the patient is fully active, and 2, ambulatory and capable of all self-care but not able to carry out any work activities).

Patients were excluded from the trial if they had received previous ALK inhibitor therapy, other than crizotinib, or had received crizotinib within 3 days of the first dose of brigatinib, or they had received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or investigational drugs within 14 days or monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first dose of the study drug. Anyone with a history or the presence of pulmonary interstitial disease or drug-related pneumonitis or symptomatic central nervous system (CNS) metastases that were neurologically unstable or required an increasing dose of corticosteroids was also ineligible.

A total of 222 patients were randomized to receive one of two brigatinib doses, either 90 mg daily or 180 mg daily after a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (the latter to help mitigate pulmonary adverse events observed in previous studies). Randomization was stratified according to baseline brain metastases (present or absent) and best investigator-assessed response to crizotinib (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] vs other or unknown)

Chest and abdomen imaging by computed-tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast were performed to assess disease at screening and every 8 weeks through cycle 15, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Contrast-enhanced brain MRI was carried out at screening and repeated after baseline for the 68% of patients who had CNS metastases at the time of enrollment.

The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1), and secondary endpoints included CNS response, duration of response (DoR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively). ORRs for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 48% and 53%, respectively. Responses occurred quickly and were durable in both arms; after a median follow-up of 8 months, median DoR was 13.8 months for both doses. Among the patients with brain metastases, the intracranial response rates for the two doses were 42% and 67%, respectively, notable because of the poor ability of crizotinib to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Other secondary outcomes also favored the 180-mg dose. Investigator-assessed PFS for the 90-mg and 180-mg doses were 9.2 months and 12.9 months, respectively, and estimated 1-year OS was 71% and 80%, respectively, the latter representing a nonstatistically significant 43% reduction in the risk of death with the 180 mg dose. There were 4 confirmed CRs in the 180-mg arm and 1 in the 90-mg arm.

The safety of brigatinib was evaluated in 219 patients who received at least 1 dose of brigatinib. Treatment was discontinued in 8% of patients in the 180-mg arm and 3% in the 90-mg arm because of adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and headache, and visual disturbances also occurred. The most common serious AEs were pneumonia and interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis.

The prescribing information details warnings and precautions about these and other potential toxicities, including hypertension, bradycardia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and pancreatic enzyme elevation, and hyperglycemia.³ Patients should be monitored for new or worsening respiratory symptoms, especially during the first week of initiating brigatinib treatment; blood pressure should be controlled before treatment initiation and monitored after 2 weeks and at least monthly thereafter; heart rate and blood pressure should be monitored frequently; patients should be advised to report any visual symptoms, or any unexplained muscle pain, tenderness or weakness; CPK, lipase, and amylase levels should be monitored during treatment, and fasting glucose tested before starting treatment and periodically thereafter.

Brigatinib should be withheld in any patient with new or worsening respiratory symptoms, for grade 3 hypertension despite optimal antihypertensive therapy, for symptomatic bradycardia, for patients with new or worsening visual symptoms of grade 2 or above, for grade 3 or 4 CPK or pancreatic enzyme elevation, or if adequate hyperglycemia control cannot be achieved. Treatment should be permanently discontinued for grade 3 or 4 or recurrent interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, grade 4 or recurrent grade 3 hypertension, life-threatening bradycardia, and grade 4 visual disturbance.

Based on its mechanism of action, brigatinib can cause fetal harm and patients of reproductive potential should be advised of the risks and necessary precautions. Brigatinib is marketed as Alunbrig. It was discovered by Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc, which was acquired by Takeda in February 2017.

Altered cell metabolism has long been recognized as a distinctive feature of malignant cells but, until recently, research efforts had focused on a single aspect. It has become increasingly evident that many metabolic pathways are altered in cancer cells. Improved understanding has yielded the first regulatory approval in this new class of drugs. Here, we discuss the latest developments in the therapeutic targeting of the cancer metabolism hallmark.

A cancer cell’s sweet tooth

The metabolism of cancer cells differs from that of normal cells, an observation that has spawned a dedicated field of research and new targeted drug development. The German physiologist Otto Warburg is credited as the father of the field with his observations about the way in which cancer cells derive energy from glucose.¹

In normal cells, glucose is converted into pyruvate in the cytoplasm, which is then, most often, fed to the mitochondria that use oxidative phosphorylation to produce energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Cancer cells seem instead to favor using the pyruvate to produce lactate through glycolysis (Figure 1).

Targeting glycolysis and glucose uptake

According to one study, glucose transporters and glycolytic enzymes are overexpressed in 24 different types of cancer, representing more than 70% of all cancer cases.⁷ This enables cancer cells to respond metabolically as though they are experiencing hypoxia, even when oxygen is plentiful and, indeed, when hypoxia is a concern, to mount a faster response. It also provides a tempting avenue for anticancer drug design by exploiting the dependency of cancer cells on glycolysis to survive and thrive.

Inhibitors of HKII, LDH, PFK, PDK, and GLUT-1 have been and continue to be developed. For example, 2-deoxy-D-glucose is a glucose molecule in which the 2-hydroxyl group has been replaced by hydrogen, preventing further glycolysis; it acts as a competitive inhibitor of HKII. Dichloroacetate (DCA) activates the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex and inhibits the actions of the PDKs. Although development of DCA itself was unsuccessful, DCA derivatives continue to be pursued. WZB117 and STF-31 are novel small-molecule inhibitors of GLUT-1-mediated glucose transport. To date, where inhibitors of glycolysis have progressed into clinical trials, they have not proved successful, often limited by off-target effects and low potency.^8-11

A variety of cell signaling pathways are implicated in metabolism by tightly regulating the ability of cells to gain access to and use nutrients. Through aberrations in these pathways, cancer cells can essentially go rogue, ignoring regulatory signals and taking up nutrients in an autonomous manner. One of the most frequently altered signaling pathways in human cancer, the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway, is also an important regulator of metabolism, coordinating the uptake of multiple nutrients, including glucose.

Akt in particular is thought to have a critical role in glucose metabolism and increased Akt pathway signaling has been shown to correlate with increased rates of glycolysis in cancer cells. Thus, Akt inhibitors could double as glycolytic or glucose transport inhibitors.^12,13

A number of Akt inhibitors are being evaluated in clinical trials (Table) and results from the phase 2 LOTUS trial of ipatasertib (GDC-0068) were recently published.

The Warburg paradox

Although the molecular mechanisms underlying the Warburg effect have been revealed to some extent, why cancer cells would choose to use such an energy-inefficient process when they have such high energy demands, remains something of a paradox. It’s still not entirely clear, but several explanations that are not necessarily mutually exclusive have been proposed and relate to the inherent benefits of glycolysis and might explain why cancer cells favor this pathway despite its poor energy yield. First, ATP is produced much more rapidly through glycolysis than oxidative phosphorylation, up to 100 times faster. Thus, using glycolysis is a trade-off, between making less energy and making it more quickly.

Second, cancer cells require more than just ATP to meet their metabolic demands. They need amino acids for protein synthesis; nucleotides for DNA replication; lipids for cell membrane synthesis; nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH), which helps the cancer cell deal with oxidative stress; and various other metabolites. Glycolysis branches off into other metabolic pathways that generate many of these metabolites. Among these branched pathways is the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP), which is required for the generation of ribonucleotides and is a major source for NADPH. Cancer cells have been shown to upregulate the flux of glucose into the PPP to meet their anabolic demands and counter oxidative stress.

Third, the lactic acid produced through glycolysis is actively exported from tumor cells by monocarboxylate transporters (MCTs). This creates a highly acidic tumor microenvironment, which can promote several cancer-related processes and also plays a role in tumor-induced immunosuppression, by inhibiting the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells, reducing dendritic cell maturation, and promoting the transformation of macrophages to a protumorigenic form.^2,4,6
 

Beyond the Warburg effect

Although the focus has been on glucose metabolism and glycolysis, it has been increasingly recognized that many different metabolic pathways are altered. Fundamental changes to the metabolism of all 4 major classes of macromolecules – carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids – have been observed, encompassing all aspects of cellular metabolism and enabling cancer cells to meet their complete metabolic requirements. There is also evidence that cancer cells are able to switch between different metabolic pathways depending on the availability of oxygen, their energetic needs, environmental stresses, and many other factors. Certainly, there is significant heterogeneity in the metabolic changes that occur in tumors, which vary from tumor to tumor and even within the same tumor and across the lifespan of a tumor as it progresses from an early stage to more advanced or metastatic disease.

The notion of the Warburg effect as a universal phenomenon in cancer cells is now being widely disregarded. Many tumors continue to use oxidative phosphorylation, particularly slower growing tumors, to meet their energy needs. More recently a “reverse” Warburg effect was described, whereby cancer cells are thought to influence the metabolism of the surrounding stromal fibroblasts and essentially outsource aerobic glycolysis to these cells, while performing energy-efficient oxidative phosphorylation themselves (Figure 2).^5,15,16

IDH inhibitors first to market

A number of new metabolically-targeted treatment strategies are being developed. Most promising are small molecule inhibitors of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) enzymes. These enzymes play an essential role in the TCA cycle, catalyzing the conversion of isocitrate to alpha-ketoglutarate, generating carbon dioxide and NADPH. Recurrent mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes have been observed in several different types of cancer, including glioma, acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and cholangiocarcinoma.

IDH mutations are known as neomorphic mutations because they confer a new function on the altered gene product. In this case, the mutant IDH enzyme converts alpha-ketoglutarate further into D-2-hydroxyglutarate (D-2HG). This molecule has a number of different effects that promote tumorigenesis, including fostering defective DNA repair (Figure 3).^20,21

Pursuing alternative targets and repurposing drugs

Other metabolic targets that are being pursued include glutaminase, given the observation of significantly enhanced glutamine uptake in cancer cells. CB-839 is a glutaminase inhibitor that is currently being evaluated in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Updated clinical trial data from a phase 1 trial of CB-839 in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last year.²⁶

As of October 2017, 49 patients had been treated with 400 mg, 600 mg, or 800 mg CB-839 twice daily in combination with 80 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel weekly. Among the 44 patients evaluable for response, the rate of PR was 22% and of disease control, 59%. The one DLT was grade 3 neutropenia at the 400 mg dose. Overall AEs were mostly low grade and reversible.

In recent years, lactate has emerged as more than just a by-product of altered cancer cell metabolism. It is responsible, at least in part, for the highly acidic tumor microenvironment that fosters many of the other hallmarks of cancer. In addition, lactate promotes angiogenesis by upregulating HIF-1α in endothelial cells. Depriving tumor cells of the ability to export lactate is a potentially promising therapeutic strategy. An MCT-1 inhibitor, AZD3965, is being evaluated in early stage clinical trials.

Finally, several drugs that are renowned for their use in other disease settings are being repurposed for cancer therapy because of their potential effects on cancer cell metabolism. Ritonavir, an antiretroviral drug used in the treatment of HIV, is an inhibitor of GLUT-1 and is being evaluated in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Meanwhile, long-term studies of metformin, a drug that has revolutionized the treatment of diabetes, have revealed a reduction in the emergence of new cancers in diabetic patients treated who are treated with it, and the drug has been shown to improve breast cancer survival rates. Its precise anticancer effects are somewhat unclear, but it is thought to act in part by inhibiting oxidative phosphorylation. Numerous clinical trials of metformin in different types of cancer are ongoing.^27,2

Altered cell metabolism has long been recognized as a distinctive feature of malignant cells but, until recently, research efforts had focused on a single aspect. It has become increasingly evident that many metabolic pathways are altered in cancer cells. Improved understanding has yielded the first regulatory approval in this new class of drugs. Here, we discuss the latest developments in the therapeutic targeting of the cancer metabolism hallmark.

A cancer cell’s sweet tooth

The metabolism of cancer cells differs from that of normal cells, an observation that has spawned a dedicated field of research and new targeted drug development. The German physiologist Otto Warburg is credited as the father of the field with his observations about the way in which cancer cells derive energy from glucose.¹

In normal cells, glucose is converted into pyruvate in the cytoplasm, which is then, most often, fed to the mitochondria that use oxidative phosphorylation to produce energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Cancer cells seem instead to favor using the pyruvate to produce lactate through glycolysis (Figure 1).

Targeting glycolysis and glucose uptake

According to one study, glucose transporters and glycolytic enzymes are overexpressed in 24 different types of cancer, representing more than 70% of all cancer cases.⁷ This enables cancer cells to respond metabolically as though they are experiencing hypoxia, even when oxygen is plentiful and, indeed, when hypoxia is a concern, to mount a faster response. It also provides a tempting avenue for anticancer drug design by exploiting the dependency of cancer cells on glycolysis to survive and thrive.

Inhibitors of HKII, LDH, PFK, PDK, and GLUT-1 have been and continue to be developed. For example, 2-deoxy-D-glucose is a glucose molecule in which the 2-hydroxyl group has been replaced by hydrogen, preventing further glycolysis; it acts as a competitive inhibitor of HKII. Dichloroacetate (DCA) activates the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex and inhibits the actions of the PDKs. Although development of DCA itself was unsuccessful, DCA derivatives continue to be pursued. WZB117 and STF-31 are novel small-molecule inhibitors of GLUT-1-mediated glucose transport. To date, where inhibitors of glycolysis have progressed into clinical trials, they have not proved successful, often limited by off-target effects and low potency.^8-11

A variety of cell signaling pathways are implicated in metabolism by tightly regulating the ability of cells to gain access to and use nutrients. Through aberrations in these pathways, cancer cells can essentially go rogue, ignoring regulatory signals and taking up nutrients in an autonomous manner. One of the most frequently altered signaling pathways in human cancer, the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway, is also an important regulator of metabolism, coordinating the uptake of multiple nutrients, including glucose.

Akt in particular is thought to have a critical role in glucose metabolism and increased Akt pathway signaling has been shown to correlate with increased rates of glycolysis in cancer cells. Thus, Akt inhibitors could double as glycolytic or glucose transport inhibitors.^12,13

A number of Akt inhibitors are being evaluated in clinical trials (Table) and results from the phase 2 LOTUS trial of ipatasertib (GDC-0068) were recently published.

The Warburg paradox

Although the molecular mechanisms underlying the Warburg effect have been revealed to some extent, why cancer cells would choose to use such an energy-inefficient process when they have such high energy demands, remains something of a paradox. It’s still not entirely clear, but several explanations that are not necessarily mutually exclusive have been proposed and relate to the inherent benefits of glycolysis and might explain why cancer cells favor this pathway despite its poor energy yield. First, ATP is produced much more rapidly through glycolysis than oxidative phosphorylation, up to 100 times faster. Thus, using glycolysis is a trade-off, between making less energy and making it more quickly.

Second, cancer cells require more than just ATP to meet their metabolic demands. They need amino acids for protein synthesis; nucleotides for DNA replication; lipids for cell membrane synthesis; nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH), which helps the cancer cell deal with oxidative stress; and various other metabolites. Glycolysis branches off into other metabolic pathways that generate many of these metabolites. Among these branched pathways is the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP), which is required for the generation of ribonucleotides and is a major source for NADPH. Cancer cells have been shown to upregulate the flux of glucose into the PPP to meet their anabolic demands and counter oxidative stress.

Third, the lactic acid produced through glycolysis is actively exported from tumor cells by monocarboxylate transporters (MCTs). This creates a highly acidic tumor microenvironment, which can promote several cancer-related processes and also plays a role in tumor-induced immunosuppression, by inhibiting the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells, reducing dendritic cell maturation, and promoting the transformation of macrophages to a protumorigenic form.^2,4,6
 

Beyond the Warburg effect

Although the focus has been on glucose metabolism and glycolysis, it has been increasingly recognized that many different metabolic pathways are altered. Fundamental changes to the metabolism of all 4 major classes of macromolecules – carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids – have been observed, encompassing all aspects of cellular metabolism and enabling cancer cells to meet their complete metabolic requirements. There is also evidence that cancer cells are able to switch between different metabolic pathways depending on the availability of oxygen, their energetic needs, environmental stresses, and many other factors. Certainly, there is significant heterogeneity in the metabolic changes that occur in tumors, which vary from tumor to tumor and even within the same tumor and across the lifespan of a tumor as it progresses from an early stage to more advanced or metastatic disease.

The notion of the Warburg effect as a universal phenomenon in cancer cells is now being widely disregarded. Many tumors continue to use oxidative phosphorylation, particularly slower growing tumors, to meet their energy needs. More recently a “reverse” Warburg effect was described, whereby cancer cells are thought to influence the metabolism of the surrounding stromal fibroblasts and essentially outsource aerobic glycolysis to these cells, while performing energy-efficient oxidative phosphorylation themselves (Figure 2).^5,15,16

IDH inhibitors first to market

A number of new metabolically-targeted treatment strategies are being developed. Most promising are small molecule inhibitors of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) enzymes. These enzymes play an essential role in the TCA cycle, catalyzing the conversion of isocitrate to alpha-ketoglutarate, generating carbon dioxide and NADPH. Recurrent mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes have been observed in several different types of cancer, including glioma, acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and cholangiocarcinoma.

IDH mutations are known as neomorphic mutations because they confer a new function on the altered gene product. In this case, the mutant IDH enzyme converts alpha-ketoglutarate further into D-2-hydroxyglutarate (D-2HG). This molecule has a number of different effects that promote tumorigenesis, including fostering defective DNA repair (Figure 3).^20,21

Pursuing alternative targets and repurposing drugs

Other metabolic targets that are being pursued include glutaminase, given the observation of significantly enhanced glutamine uptake in cancer cells. CB-839 is a glutaminase inhibitor that is currently being evaluated in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Updated clinical trial data from a phase 1 trial of CB-839 in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last year.²⁶

As of October 2017, 49 patients had been treated with 400 mg, 600 mg, or 800 mg CB-839 twice daily in combination with 80 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel weekly. Among the 44 patients evaluable for response, the rate of PR was 22% and of disease control, 59%. The one DLT was grade 3 neutropenia at the 400 mg dose. Overall AEs were mostly low grade and reversible.

In recent years, lactate has emerged as more than just a by-product of altered cancer cell metabolism. It is responsible, at least in part, for the highly acidic tumor microenvironment that fosters many of the other hallmarks of cancer. In addition, lactate promotes angiogenesis by upregulating HIF-1α in endothelial cells. Depriving tumor cells of the ability to export lactate is a potentially promising therapeutic strategy. An MCT-1 inhibitor, AZD3965, is being evaluated in early stage clinical trials.

Finally, several drugs that are renowned for their use in other disease settings are being repurposed for cancer therapy because of their potential effects on cancer cell metabolism. Ritonavir, an antiretroviral drug used in the treatment of HIV, is an inhibitor of GLUT-1 and is being evaluated in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Meanwhile, long-term studies of metformin, a drug that has revolutionized the treatment of diabetes, have revealed a reduction in the emergence of new cancers in diabetic patients treated who are treated with it, and the drug has been shown to improve breast cancer survival rates. Its precise anticancer effects are somewhat unclear, but it is thought to act in part by inhibiting oxidative phosphorylation. Numerous clinical trials of metformin in different types of cancer are ongoing.^27,2

Altered cell metabolism has long been recognized as a distinctive feature of malignant cells but, until recently, research efforts had focused on a single aspect. It has become increasingly evident that many metabolic pathways are altered in cancer cells. Improved understanding has yielded the first regulatory approval in this new class of drugs. Here, we discuss the latest developments in the therapeutic targeting of the cancer metabolism hallmark.

A cancer cell’s sweet tooth

The metabolism of cancer cells differs from that of normal cells, an observation that has spawned a dedicated field of research and new targeted drug development. The German physiologist Otto Warburg is credited as the father of the field with his observations about the way in which cancer cells derive energy from glucose.¹

In normal cells, glucose is converted into pyruvate in the cytoplasm, which is then, most often, fed to the mitochondria that use oxidative phosphorylation to produce energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Cancer cells seem instead to favor using the pyruvate to produce lactate through glycolysis (Figure 1).

Targeting glycolysis and glucose uptake

According to one study, glucose transporters and glycolytic enzymes are overexpressed in 24 different types of cancer, representing more than 70% of all cancer cases.⁷ This enables cancer cells to respond metabolically as though they are experiencing hypoxia, even when oxygen is plentiful and, indeed, when hypoxia is a concern, to mount a faster response. It also provides a tempting avenue for anticancer drug design by exploiting the dependency of cancer cells on glycolysis to survive and thrive.

Inhibitors of HKII, LDH, PFK, PDK, and GLUT-1 have been and continue to be developed. For example, 2-deoxy-D-glucose is a glucose molecule in which the 2-hydroxyl group has been replaced by hydrogen, preventing further glycolysis; it acts as a competitive inhibitor of HKII. Dichloroacetate (DCA) activates the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex and inhibits the actions of the PDKs. Although development of DCA itself was unsuccessful, DCA derivatives continue to be pursued. WZB117 and STF-31 are novel small-molecule inhibitors of GLUT-1-mediated glucose transport. To date, where inhibitors of glycolysis have progressed into clinical trials, they have not proved successful, often limited by off-target effects and low potency.^8-11

A variety of cell signaling pathways are implicated in metabolism by tightly regulating the ability of cells to gain access to and use nutrients. Through aberrations in these pathways, cancer cells can essentially go rogue, ignoring regulatory signals and taking up nutrients in an autonomous manner. One of the most frequently altered signaling pathways in human cancer, the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway, is also an important regulator of metabolism, coordinating the uptake of multiple nutrients, including glucose.

Akt in particular is thought to have a critical role in glucose metabolism and increased Akt pathway signaling has been shown to correlate with increased rates of glycolysis in cancer cells. Thus, Akt inhibitors could double as glycolytic or glucose transport inhibitors.^12,13

A number of Akt inhibitors are being evaluated in clinical trials (Table) and results from the phase 2 LOTUS trial of ipatasertib (GDC-0068) were recently published.

The Warburg paradox

Although the molecular mechanisms underlying the Warburg effect have been revealed to some extent, why cancer cells would choose to use such an energy-inefficient process when they have such high energy demands, remains something of a paradox. It’s still not entirely clear, but several explanations that are not necessarily mutually exclusive have been proposed and relate to the inherent benefits of glycolysis and might explain why cancer cells favor this pathway despite its poor energy yield. First, ATP is produced much more rapidly through glycolysis than oxidative phosphorylation, up to 100 times faster. Thus, using glycolysis is a trade-off, between making less energy and making it more quickly.

Second, cancer cells require more than just ATP to meet their metabolic demands. They need amino acids for protein synthesis; nucleotides for DNA replication; lipids for cell membrane synthesis; nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH), which helps the cancer cell deal with oxidative stress; and various other metabolites. Glycolysis branches off into other metabolic pathways that generate many of these metabolites. Among these branched pathways is the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP), which is required for the generation of ribonucleotides and is a major source for NADPH. Cancer cells have been shown to upregulate the flux of glucose into the PPP to meet their anabolic demands and counter oxidative stress.

Third, the lactic acid produced through glycolysis is actively exported from tumor cells by monocarboxylate transporters (MCTs). This creates a highly acidic tumor microenvironment, which can promote several cancer-related processes and also plays a role in tumor-induced immunosuppression, by inhibiting the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells, reducing dendritic cell maturation, and promoting the transformation of macrophages to a protumorigenic form.^2,4,6
 

Beyond the Warburg effect

Although the focus has been on glucose metabolism and glycolysis, it has been increasingly recognized that many different metabolic pathways are altered. Fundamental changes to the metabolism of all 4 major classes of macromolecules – carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids – have been observed, encompassing all aspects of cellular metabolism and enabling cancer cells to meet their complete metabolic requirements. There is also evidence that cancer cells are able to switch between different metabolic pathways depending on the availability of oxygen, their energetic needs, environmental stresses, and many other factors. Certainly, there is significant heterogeneity in the metabolic changes that occur in tumors, which vary from tumor to tumor and even within the same tumor and across the lifespan of a tumor as it progresses from an early stage to more advanced or metastatic disease.

The notion of the Warburg effect as a universal phenomenon in cancer cells is now being widely disregarded. Many tumors continue to use oxidative phosphorylation, particularly slower growing tumors, to meet their energy needs. More recently a “reverse” Warburg effect was described, whereby cancer cells are thought to influence the metabolism of the surrounding stromal fibroblasts and essentially outsource aerobic glycolysis to these cells, while performing energy-efficient oxidative phosphorylation themselves (Figure 2).^5,15,16

IDH inhibitors first to market

A number of new metabolically-targeted treatment strategies are being developed. Most promising are small molecule inhibitors of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) enzymes. These enzymes play an essential role in the TCA cycle, catalyzing the conversion of isocitrate to alpha-ketoglutarate, generating carbon dioxide and NADPH. Recurrent mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes have been observed in several different types of cancer, including glioma, acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and cholangiocarcinoma.

IDH mutations are known as neomorphic mutations because they confer a new function on the altered gene product. In this case, the mutant IDH enzyme converts alpha-ketoglutarate further into D-2-hydroxyglutarate (D-2HG). This molecule has a number of different effects that promote tumorigenesis, including fostering defective DNA repair (Figure 3).^20,21

Pursuing alternative targets and repurposing drugs

Other metabolic targets that are being pursued include glutaminase, given the observation of significantly enhanced glutamine uptake in cancer cells. CB-839 is a glutaminase inhibitor that is currently being evaluated in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Updated clinical trial data from a phase 1 trial of CB-839 in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last year.²⁶

As of October 2017, 49 patients had been treated with 400 mg, 600 mg, or 800 mg CB-839 twice daily in combination with 80 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel weekly. Among the 44 patients evaluable for response, the rate of PR was 22% and of disease control, 59%. The one DLT was grade 3 neutropenia at the 400 mg dose. Overall AEs were mostly low grade and reversible.

In recent years, lactate has emerged as more than just a by-product of altered cancer cell metabolism. It is responsible, at least in part, for the highly acidic tumor microenvironment that fosters many of the other hallmarks of cancer. In addition, lactate promotes angiogenesis by upregulating HIF-1α in endothelial cells. Depriving tumor cells of the ability to export lactate is a potentially promising therapeutic strategy. An MCT-1 inhibitor, AZD3965, is being evaluated in early stage clinical trials.

Finally, several drugs that are renowned for their use in other disease settings are being repurposed for cancer therapy because of their potential effects on cancer cell metabolism. Ritonavir, an antiretroviral drug used in the treatment of HIV, is an inhibitor of GLUT-1 and is being evaluated in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Meanwhile, long-term studies of metformin, a drug that has revolutionized the treatment of diabetes, have revealed a reduction in the emergence of new cancers in diabetic patients treated who are treated with it, and the drug has been shown to improve breast cancer survival rates. Its precise anticancer effects are somewhat unclear, but it is thought to act in part by inhibiting oxidative phosphorylation. Numerous clinical trials of metformin in different types of cancer are ongoing.^27,2

As our understanding of the biology of breast cancer has improved, treatment has become increasingly personalized. Targeted therapies continue to significantly improve patient outcomes in multiple subtypes, with several recent drug approvals. Here, we discuss some of these latest developments.

A disease of many faces

Clinically speaking, breast cancers can be divided into at least 5 subtypes on the basis of the genes they express (Figure 1). The luminal subtypes make up the largest proportion and are characterized by the expression of hormone receptor (HR) genes. Luminal A tumors are negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; HER2-negative), whereas luminal B tumors often co-express the HER2 genes.¹

The remainder of HER2-positive patients fall into the HER2-enriched category, in which HER2 expression is the defining characteristic. Basal-like tumors, meanwhile, represent the most heterogeneous subtype, overlapping to a large extent with tumors dubbed “triple-negative” because of their lack of either HER2 or ESR1 and PGR gene expression. The fifth subtype is known as normal breast-like and remains poorly characterized.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the genomic characterization of breast cancer that have begun to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the driver molecular mechanisms, which has helped to explain some of the limitations of current targeted approaches and to reveal new possible treatments, with a shift toward increasingly personalized strategies.²
 

HER2: what’s neu?

An estimated 18%-20% of breast tumors are HER2 positive, displaying amplification of the HER2/neu gene or overexpression of its protein product.³ Historically, HER2 positivity correlated with a highly aggressive and metastatic form of disease, conferring poor prognosis.^4,5 The HER2-targeted monoclonal antibody (mAb), trastuzumab serves as a prime example of the power of personalized medicine. Evidence suggests that trastuzumab has altered the natural history of HER2-positive breast cancer, such that trastuzumab-treated patients with HER2-positive breast cancer now have a better prognosis than do patients with HER2-negative disease.^6,7

Several additional HER2-targeted drugs have joined trastuzumab on the market, including other mAbs, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and an antibody–drug conjugate that combines the specificity of a mAb with the anti-tumor potency of a cytotoxic drug. These drugs have further improved patient outcomes in both early and advanced disease settings (Table 1).

Tucatinib (ONT-380) has shown significant promise in this respect. In a phase 1 trial, ONT-380 had significant efficacy in patients with and without central nervous system metastases; the overall response rate (ORR) in the CNS was 36%. ONT-380 is also notable for its specificity for HER2, without significant inhibition of HER1 and EGFR, which could translate into a better toxicity profile.¹²
 

Doubling down on resistant tumors

Since the success of HER2-targeted therapy is limited by the development of resistance, there has been significant interest in assessing the potential of dual HER2 blockade, exploiting the unique mechanisms of action of different drugs in combination therapy, and ensuring more complete inhibition of the HER2 pathway. Although numerous different combinations have been tested, a double antibody combination has proved most effective.

In fact, dual HER2 targeting with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with chemotherapy has replaced a trastuzumab-chemotherapy regimen as the new standard of care in the metastatic setting. A 6-month improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) sealed FDA approval for the combination and in a recently published final analysis of the trial overall survival (OS) was also improved to a level unprecedented in the first-line setting.^13,14The double antibody combination has also been successful in the neoadjuvant setting. Approval followed the results of the phase 2 NeoSphere trial, in which the combination was associated with a significant improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, a measure that acts as a surrogate for improved survival in the neoadjuvant setting. In a 5-year analysis of the NeoSphere trial, improved pCR did indeed translate into improved PFS and DFS.^15,16

The results of the phase 3 APHINITY trial evaluating this combination in the adjuvant setting have been hotly anticipated. In a presentation at the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in June, the study authors reported that in 4,085 patients with operable HER2-positive disease, it significantly reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death compared with trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone.¹⁷

There is an ongoing effort to determine if it is possible to de-escalate treatment by removing the chemotherapy component. At least in the neoadjuvant setting, pCR rates in the chemotherapy-free arms of several studies suggest that a proportion of patients might benefit from this strategy^15,18,19 and the challenge now is to identify them. To that end, the phase 2 PAMELA trial identified the HER2-enriched subtype as a strong predictor of response to neoadjuvant dual blockade (lapatinib and trastuzumab) without chemotherapy. The pCR rate was 40.6% for the combination in patients with the HER2-enriched subtype of breast cancer and only 10% in patients with non–HER2-enriched tumors.²⁰

Targeting resistance to endocrine therapy

Another coup for personalized medicine in breast cancer is the treatment of hormone receptor–positive cases with endocrine therapy, which has become the cornerstone of treatment in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. Those drugs are designed to block the growth-stimulating effects of the estrogen and progesterone hormones on tumor cells. They include the selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulator tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) such as letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane, which work by blocking the activity of the aromatase enzyme that converts androgens into estrogens, and the selective estrogen-receptor down-regulator fulvestrant.

As with HER2-targeted therapy, patients treated with endocrine therapy often develop resistance. Activation of alternate signaling cascades, such as the P13K–Akt–mTOR (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase–Akt–mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway, or downstream targets of ER signaling, including the cyclin-dependent kinases, CDK4 and CDK6, have emerged as important mechanisms of resistance.^21,22

Drugs directed against these secondary targets, aimed to enhance the efficacy of endocrine therapies, have shown significant promise (Table 2). The mTOR inhibitor everolimus received FDA approval in 2012 in combination with exemestane for the treatment of advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.²³ More recently, everolimus has also proven effective in combination with either fulvestrant or letrozole, according to the phase 2 PrECOG 0102 and BOLERO-4 studies, both doubling PFS compared with endocrine therapy alone.^24,25

Teasing out ‘HER2-positive’ subtypes

Until recently, “HER2-positive” and “HR-positive” tumors have been treated as separate subtypes, despite the fact that about half of HER2-positive tumors fall into the luminal A subtype and are also HR-positive. Patients were typically treated with HER2-targeted therapy regardless of their endocrine status because of the aggressive nature of HER2-positive disease.

Increasingly, researchers are reconsidering this view, especially as several studies have shown differential response rates to HER2-targeted therapy in HR-positive compared with HR-negative patients and accumulating evidence suggests that there is significant crosstalk between the HER2 and HR pathways, which may be responsible for the development of resistance with both treatment paradigms.

Findings from several studies have shown a benefit to combining HER2-targeted and hormonal therapies in patients with luminal (HR-positive), HER2-positive disease. In the metastatic setting, the results of the phase 2 PERTAIN study, presented at the 2017 ASCO annual meeting suggest that dual HER2 blockade could prove even more effective. The addition of pertuzumab to a combination of trastuzumab and an AI improved PFS by more than 3 months (median PFS, 19.89 vs 15.8 months; HR, 0.65; P = .007).³³

The clinical application of these combinations may be limited by the additional cost – several studies have suggested that they are not cost effective – and toxicity, but have served to drive the development of new clinical trial designs as the importance of considering luminal and nonluminal HER2-positive tumors has become increasingly apparent.
 

PARP inhibitors make a dent in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers

The most renowned breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are present in about 5%-10% of all breast cancers. They play a central role in the homologous recombination pathway that fixes double-strand breaks in the DNA. Genome sequencing studies have revealed that the presence of the BRCA1/2 genes and other DNA repair defects is highest among patients with the basal-like subtype of breast cancer, in particular those who have triple-negative disease.^34,35

This type of breast cancer has proved stubbornly resistant to efforts to improve patient outcomes with targeted therapies. BRCA1/2 mutations and other DNA repair defects that confer a so-called BRCAness phenotype, render tumor cells dependent on other pathways for DNA repair and there has been considerable interest in therapeutically exploiting this through the development of inhibitors of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme, which is involved in the repair of single-strand breaks in the DNA. The double damage to DNA repair mechanisms through PARP inhibition in patients with BRCA1/2-mutant tumors proves overwhelming to cancerous cells.

Despite more than a decade of investigation in breast cancer, PARP inhibitors have yet to yield any FDA-approved treatment options. That may be set to change imminently, following the success of olaparib (Table 3). In the first randomized phase 3 trial of a PARP inhibitor in breast cancer (OlympiAD), olaparib was compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated MBC who had received up to 2 previous lines of chemotherapy. Olaparib reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% compared with standard chemotherapy and was well tolerated.³⁶

As our understanding of the biology of breast cancer has improved, treatment has become increasingly personalized. Targeted therapies continue to significantly improve patient outcomes in multiple subtypes, with several recent drug approvals. Here, we discuss some of these latest developments.

A disease of many faces

Clinically speaking, breast cancers can be divided into at least 5 subtypes on the basis of the genes they express (Figure 1). The luminal subtypes make up the largest proportion and are characterized by the expression of hormone receptor (HR) genes. Luminal A tumors are negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; HER2-negative), whereas luminal B tumors often co-express the HER2 genes.¹

The remainder of HER2-positive patients fall into the HER2-enriched category, in which HER2 expression is the defining characteristic. Basal-like tumors, meanwhile, represent the most heterogeneous subtype, overlapping to a large extent with tumors dubbed “triple-negative” because of their lack of either HER2 or ESR1 and PGR gene expression. The fifth subtype is known as normal breast-like and remains poorly characterized.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the genomic characterization of breast cancer that have begun to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the driver molecular mechanisms, which has helped to explain some of the limitations of current targeted approaches and to reveal new possible treatments, with a shift toward increasingly personalized strategies.²
 

HER2: what’s neu?

An estimated 18%-20% of breast tumors are HER2 positive, displaying amplification of the HER2/neu gene or overexpression of its protein product.³ Historically, HER2 positivity correlated with a highly aggressive and metastatic form of disease, conferring poor prognosis.^4,5 The HER2-targeted monoclonal antibody (mAb), trastuzumab serves as a prime example of the power of personalized medicine. Evidence suggests that trastuzumab has altered the natural history of HER2-positive breast cancer, such that trastuzumab-treated patients with HER2-positive breast cancer now have a better prognosis than do patients with HER2-negative disease.^6,7

Several additional HER2-targeted drugs have joined trastuzumab on the market, including other mAbs, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and an antibody–drug conjugate that combines the specificity of a mAb with the anti-tumor potency of a cytotoxic drug. These drugs have further improved patient outcomes in both early and advanced disease settings (Table 1).

Tucatinib (ONT-380) has shown significant promise in this respect. In a phase 1 trial, ONT-380 had significant efficacy in patients with and without central nervous system metastases; the overall response rate (ORR) in the CNS was 36%. ONT-380 is also notable for its specificity for HER2, without significant inhibition of HER1 and EGFR, which could translate into a better toxicity profile.¹²
 

Doubling down on resistant tumors

Since the success of HER2-targeted therapy is limited by the development of resistance, there has been significant interest in assessing the potential of dual HER2 blockade, exploiting the unique mechanisms of action of different drugs in combination therapy, and ensuring more complete inhibition of the HER2 pathway. Although numerous different combinations have been tested, a double antibody combination has proved most effective.

In fact, dual HER2 targeting with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with chemotherapy has replaced a trastuzumab-chemotherapy regimen as the new standard of care in the metastatic setting. A 6-month improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) sealed FDA approval for the combination and in a recently published final analysis of the trial overall survival (OS) was also improved to a level unprecedented in the first-line setting.^13,14The double antibody combination has also been successful in the neoadjuvant setting. Approval followed the results of the phase 2 NeoSphere trial, in which the combination was associated with a significant improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, a measure that acts as a surrogate for improved survival in the neoadjuvant setting. In a 5-year analysis of the NeoSphere trial, improved pCR did indeed translate into improved PFS and DFS.^15,16

The results of the phase 3 APHINITY trial evaluating this combination in the adjuvant setting have been hotly anticipated. In a presentation at the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in June, the study authors reported that in 4,085 patients with operable HER2-positive disease, it significantly reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death compared with trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone.¹⁷

There is an ongoing effort to determine if it is possible to de-escalate treatment by removing the chemotherapy component. At least in the neoadjuvant setting, pCR rates in the chemotherapy-free arms of several studies suggest that a proportion of patients might benefit from this strategy^15,18,19 and the challenge now is to identify them. To that end, the phase 2 PAMELA trial identified the HER2-enriched subtype as a strong predictor of response to neoadjuvant dual blockade (lapatinib and trastuzumab) without chemotherapy. The pCR rate was 40.6% for the combination in patients with the HER2-enriched subtype of breast cancer and only 10% in patients with non–HER2-enriched tumors.²⁰

Targeting resistance to endocrine therapy

Another coup for personalized medicine in breast cancer is the treatment of hormone receptor–positive cases with endocrine therapy, which has become the cornerstone of treatment in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. Those drugs are designed to block the growth-stimulating effects of the estrogen and progesterone hormones on tumor cells. They include the selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulator tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) such as letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane, which work by blocking the activity of the aromatase enzyme that converts androgens into estrogens, and the selective estrogen-receptor down-regulator fulvestrant.

As with HER2-targeted therapy, patients treated with endocrine therapy often develop resistance. Activation of alternate signaling cascades, such as the P13K–Akt–mTOR (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase–Akt–mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway, or downstream targets of ER signaling, including the cyclin-dependent kinases, CDK4 and CDK6, have emerged as important mechanisms of resistance.^21,22

Drugs directed against these secondary targets, aimed to enhance the efficacy of endocrine therapies, have shown significant promise (Table 2). The mTOR inhibitor everolimus received FDA approval in 2012 in combination with exemestane for the treatment of advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.²³ More recently, everolimus has also proven effective in combination with either fulvestrant or letrozole, according to the phase 2 PrECOG 0102 and BOLERO-4 studies, both doubling PFS compared with endocrine therapy alone.^24,25

Teasing out ‘HER2-positive’ subtypes

Until recently, “HER2-positive” and “HR-positive” tumors have been treated as separate subtypes, despite the fact that about half of HER2-positive tumors fall into the luminal A subtype and are also HR-positive. Patients were typically treated with HER2-targeted therapy regardless of their endocrine status because of the aggressive nature of HER2-positive disease.

Increasingly, researchers are reconsidering this view, especially as several studies have shown differential response rates to HER2-targeted therapy in HR-positive compared with HR-negative patients and accumulating evidence suggests that there is significant crosstalk between the HER2 and HR pathways, which may be responsible for the development of resistance with both treatment paradigms.

Findings from several studies have shown a benefit to combining HER2-targeted and hormonal therapies in patients with luminal (HR-positive), HER2-positive disease. In the metastatic setting, the results of the phase 2 PERTAIN study, presented at the 2017 ASCO annual meeting suggest that dual HER2 blockade could prove even more effective. The addition of pertuzumab to a combination of trastuzumab and an AI improved PFS by more than 3 months (median PFS, 19.89 vs 15.8 months; HR, 0.65; P = .007).³³

The clinical application of these combinations may be limited by the additional cost – several studies have suggested that they are not cost effective – and toxicity, but have served to drive the development of new clinical trial designs as the importance of considering luminal and nonluminal HER2-positive tumors has become increasingly apparent.
 

PARP inhibitors make a dent in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers

The most renowned breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are present in about 5%-10% of all breast cancers. They play a central role in the homologous recombination pathway that fixes double-strand breaks in the DNA. Genome sequencing studies have revealed that the presence of the BRCA1/2 genes and other DNA repair defects is highest among patients with the basal-like subtype of breast cancer, in particular those who have triple-negative disease.^34,35

This type of breast cancer has proved stubbornly resistant to efforts to improve patient outcomes with targeted therapies. BRCA1/2 mutations and other DNA repair defects that confer a so-called BRCAness phenotype, render tumor cells dependent on other pathways for DNA repair and there has been considerable interest in therapeutically exploiting this through the development of inhibitors of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme, which is involved in the repair of single-strand breaks in the DNA. The double damage to DNA repair mechanisms through PARP inhibition in patients with BRCA1/2-mutant tumors proves overwhelming to cancerous cells.

Despite more than a decade of investigation in breast cancer, PARP inhibitors have yet to yield any FDA-approved treatment options. That may be set to change imminently, following the success of olaparib (Table 3). In the first randomized phase 3 trial of a PARP inhibitor in breast cancer (OlympiAD), olaparib was compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated MBC who had received up to 2 previous lines of chemotherapy. Olaparib reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% compared with standard chemotherapy and was well tolerated.³⁶

As our understanding of the biology of breast cancer has improved, treatment has become increasingly personalized. Targeted therapies continue to significantly improve patient outcomes in multiple subtypes, with several recent drug approvals. Here, we discuss some of these latest developments.

A disease of many faces

Clinically speaking, breast cancers can be divided into at least 5 subtypes on the basis of the genes they express (Figure 1). The luminal subtypes make up the largest proportion and are characterized by the expression of hormone receptor (HR) genes. Luminal A tumors are negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; HER2-negative), whereas luminal B tumors often co-express the HER2 genes.¹

The remainder of HER2-positive patients fall into the HER2-enriched category, in which HER2 expression is the defining characteristic. Basal-like tumors, meanwhile, represent the most heterogeneous subtype, overlapping to a large extent with tumors dubbed “triple-negative” because of their lack of either HER2 or ESR1 and PGR gene expression. The fifth subtype is known as normal breast-like and remains poorly characterized.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the genomic characterization of breast cancer that have begun to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the driver molecular mechanisms, which has helped to explain some of the limitations of current targeted approaches and to reveal new possible treatments, with a shift toward increasingly personalized strategies.²
 

HER2: what’s neu?

An estimated 18%-20% of breast tumors are HER2 positive, displaying amplification of the HER2/neu gene or overexpression of its protein product.³ Historically, HER2 positivity correlated with a highly aggressive and metastatic form of disease, conferring poor prognosis.^4,5 The HER2-targeted monoclonal antibody (mAb), trastuzumab serves as a prime example of the power of personalized medicine. Evidence suggests that trastuzumab has altered the natural history of HER2-positive breast cancer, such that trastuzumab-treated patients with HER2-positive breast cancer now have a better prognosis than do patients with HER2-negative disease.^6,7

Several additional HER2-targeted drugs have joined trastuzumab on the market, including other mAbs, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and an antibody–drug conjugate that combines the specificity of a mAb with the anti-tumor potency of a cytotoxic drug. These drugs have further improved patient outcomes in both early and advanced disease settings (Table 1).

Tucatinib (ONT-380) has shown significant promise in this respect. In a phase 1 trial, ONT-380 had significant efficacy in patients with and without central nervous system metastases; the overall response rate (ORR) in the CNS was 36%. ONT-380 is also notable for its specificity for HER2, without significant inhibition of HER1 and EGFR, which could translate into a better toxicity profile.¹²
 

Doubling down on resistant tumors

Since the success of HER2-targeted therapy is limited by the development of resistance, there has been significant interest in assessing the potential of dual HER2 blockade, exploiting the unique mechanisms of action of different drugs in combination therapy, and ensuring more complete inhibition of the HER2 pathway. Although numerous different combinations have been tested, a double antibody combination has proved most effective.

In fact, dual HER2 targeting with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with chemotherapy has replaced a trastuzumab-chemotherapy regimen as the new standard of care in the metastatic setting. A 6-month improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) sealed FDA approval for the combination and in a recently published final analysis of the trial overall survival (OS) was also improved to a level unprecedented in the first-line setting.^13,14The double antibody combination has also been successful in the neoadjuvant setting. Approval followed the results of the phase 2 NeoSphere trial, in which the combination was associated with a significant improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, a measure that acts as a surrogate for improved survival in the neoadjuvant setting. In a 5-year analysis of the NeoSphere trial, improved pCR did indeed translate into improved PFS and DFS.^15,16

The results of the phase 3 APHINITY trial evaluating this combination in the adjuvant setting have been hotly anticipated. In a presentation at the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in June, the study authors reported that in 4,085 patients with operable HER2-positive disease, it significantly reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death compared with trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone.¹⁷

There is an ongoing effort to determine if it is possible to de-escalate treatment by removing the chemotherapy component. At least in the neoadjuvant setting, pCR rates in the chemotherapy-free arms of several studies suggest that a proportion of patients might benefit from this strategy^15,18,19 and the challenge now is to identify them. To that end, the phase 2 PAMELA trial identified the HER2-enriched subtype as a strong predictor of response to neoadjuvant dual blockade (lapatinib and trastuzumab) without chemotherapy. The pCR rate was 40.6% for the combination in patients with the HER2-enriched subtype of breast cancer and only 10% in patients with non–HER2-enriched tumors.²⁰

Targeting resistance to endocrine therapy

Another coup for personalized medicine in breast cancer is the treatment of hormone receptor–positive cases with endocrine therapy, which has become the cornerstone of treatment in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. Those drugs are designed to block the growth-stimulating effects of the estrogen and progesterone hormones on tumor cells. They include the selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulator tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) such as letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane, which work by blocking the activity of the aromatase enzyme that converts androgens into estrogens, and the selective estrogen-receptor down-regulator fulvestrant.

As with HER2-targeted therapy, patients treated with endocrine therapy often develop resistance. Activation of alternate signaling cascades, such as the P13K–Akt–mTOR (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase–Akt–mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway, or downstream targets of ER signaling, including the cyclin-dependent kinases, CDK4 and CDK6, have emerged as important mechanisms of resistance.^21,22

Drugs directed against these secondary targets, aimed to enhance the efficacy of endocrine therapies, have shown significant promise (Table 2). The mTOR inhibitor everolimus received FDA approval in 2012 in combination with exemestane for the treatment of advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.²³ More recently, everolimus has also proven effective in combination with either fulvestrant or letrozole, according to the phase 2 PrECOG 0102 and BOLERO-4 studies, both doubling PFS compared with endocrine therapy alone.^24,25

Teasing out ‘HER2-positive’ subtypes

Until recently, “HER2-positive” and “HR-positive” tumors have been treated as separate subtypes, despite the fact that about half of HER2-positive tumors fall into the luminal A subtype and are also HR-positive. Patients were typically treated with HER2-targeted therapy regardless of their endocrine status because of the aggressive nature of HER2-positive disease.

Increasingly, researchers are reconsidering this view, especially as several studies have shown differential response rates to HER2-targeted therapy in HR-positive compared with HR-negative patients and accumulating evidence suggests that there is significant crosstalk between the HER2 and HR pathways, which may be responsible for the development of resistance with both treatment paradigms.

Findings from several studies have shown a benefit to combining HER2-targeted and hormonal therapies in patients with luminal (HR-positive), HER2-positive disease. In the metastatic setting, the results of the phase 2 PERTAIN study, presented at the 2017 ASCO annual meeting suggest that dual HER2 blockade could prove even more effective. The addition of pertuzumab to a combination of trastuzumab and an AI improved PFS by more than 3 months (median PFS, 19.89 vs 15.8 months; HR, 0.65; P = .007).³³

The clinical application of these combinations may be limited by the additional cost – several studies have suggested that they are not cost effective – and toxicity, but have served to drive the development of new clinical trial designs as the importance of considering luminal and nonluminal HER2-positive tumors has become increasingly apparent.
 

PARP inhibitors make a dent in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers

The most renowned breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are present in about 5%-10% of all breast cancers. They play a central role in the homologous recombination pathway that fixes double-strand breaks in the DNA. Genome sequencing studies have revealed that the presence of the BRCA1/2 genes and other DNA repair defects is highest among patients with the basal-like subtype of breast cancer, in particular those who have triple-negative disease.^34,35

This type of breast cancer has proved stubbornly resistant to efforts to improve patient outcomes with targeted therapies. BRCA1/2 mutations and other DNA repair defects that confer a so-called BRCAness phenotype, render tumor cells dependent on other pathways for DNA repair and there has been considerable interest in therapeutically exploiting this through the development of inhibitors of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme, which is involved in the repair of single-strand breaks in the DNA. The double damage to DNA repair mechanisms through PARP inhibition in patients with BRCA1/2-mutant tumors proves overwhelming to cancerous cells.

Despite more than a decade of investigation in breast cancer, PARP inhibitors have yet to yield any FDA-approved treatment options. That may be set to change imminently, following the success of olaparib (Table 3). In the first randomized phase 3 trial of a PARP inhibitor in breast cancer (OlympiAD), olaparib was compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated MBC who had received up to 2 previous lines of chemotherapy. Olaparib reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% compared with standard chemotherapy and was well tolerated.³⁶

When cancer care is centralized in a comprehensive fashion, the quality of care and the outcomes improve.^1,2 Unfortunately, because of the medical insurance structure in New York City, most patients of lower socioeconomic status do not receive their cancer care in such dedicated cancer centers. In New York City, the majority of the underserved vulnerable populations – that is, those without health insurance – receive their care from the public hospital system known as NYC Health and Hospitals. Cancer care in this system is not centralized and may result in fragmented implementation of various modalities of treatment. In addition, because there is no centralized care, needs such as early screening and prevention programs are often not addressed. This problem was evident in Queens in 2000 and before when many patients with late-stage cancers were presenting for cancer care. Queens, which is one of the 5 boroughs of New York City, has more than 2.3 million residents. It has 2 public hospitals, Elmhurst Hospital Center and Queens Hospital Center (QHC). In 2001, the plan was devised for the establishment of a cancer center at QHC, mainly because of the high rate of late-stage cancers that were being seen at presentation and recognition of the need for more comprehensive care. In 2002, the Queens Cancer Center (QCC) began to see patients. QCC is a single facility that provides medical, surgical, radiation, gynecologic, and urologic oncology all in one area of the QHC.

This study is an investigation of the possible impact on care for breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status who were treated at a comprehensive cancer center, with specific consideration of the change or improvement in treatment modalities and outcomes. Data on treatment modalities and outcomes of cancer patients who were treated at the QHC during 2000, before the QCC was set up, were compared with data of patients treated during 2008 (2008 was selected because we have 5-year survival data for those patients). The public hospital system treats all patients regardless of their ability to pay, so the majority of patients in the system are of lower socioeconomic status. In addition, 92% of the patients seen QHC are from a minority population. These are the populations that tend to have a worse prognosis and often are not given optimal treatment.³ The payer mix of patients in the public hospital system is different than that of private hospitals. Most of the patients present at the hospital with no insurance and if they are diagnosed with cancer they may be converted to emergency Medicaid. About 10% of patients will not be converted because of their document status.
 

Patients and methods

We used the Queens Hospital Tumor Registry to identify the patients who had been diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer in 2000 and 2008. The electronic medical records were reviewed, and in the case of the 2000-year patients, the written charts were also reviewed. The study was approved by the Mount Sinai institutional review board. It was not necessary to obtain patient consent because it was a retrospective study.

Only patients diagnosed with stage 0, I, II, or III breast cancer who received their treatment at QHC were included in the study. Patients who were seen in consultation at QHC but not treated there were excluded. Statistics were done using the 2x2 chi-squared SPSS analysis; a P value of .05 was considered significant. The survival data was analyzed using SAS.

Results

There were 24 evaluable patients in 2000 and 78 evaluable patients in 2008 who had stage 0, I, II, or III primary breast cancer and were treated at QHC. The average age of the patients in 2000 was 53.5 years and 54.7 years in 2008. The mean age for both groups was 55 years. The patients were ethnically diverse in both groups with 46% black, 17% Hispanic, 25% ethnic Asian Indian, and 6% white (Figure 1).

The payer mix in 2000 was 9 patients (37.5%) self-pay, 7 (29%) Medicaid, and 8 (33%) Medicare. In 2008, 11 patients (14%) were self-pay, 46 (59%) Medicaid, 11 (14%) Medicare, and 10 (13%) were private insurance. In 2000, there were 3 (12%) patients with stage 0 disease, 5 (21%) with stage I; 9 (37.5%) with stage II, and 7 (29%) with stage III. In 2008 there were 28 (36%) patients with stage 0 disease, 15 (19%) with stage I, 17 (22%) with stage II, and 18 (23%) with stage III (Figure 2).

Discussion

There have been numerous studies reporting on disparities in the treatment of patients with breast cancer based on race or socioeconomic status.^4-18 Many studies have shown inferior survival for black women with breast cancer, but it is not entirely clear whether these differences are the result of the quality of medical care received or biologic differences.^14,19 A moderately large study from a metropolitan medical center in Detroit showed no difference in survival in their patients based on race when all of the patients received equal treatments.¹⁵ A meta-analysis of survival in black and white breast cancer patients showed that the black women had significantly poorer outcomes.¹⁹

Findings from a recent study showed that patients of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to undergo mastectomy than breast conserving therapy.²⁰ The study, which identified 727,927 patients with early-stage breast cancer during 1998-2011, found that the rate of breast conservation increased from 54% to 59% during that time period and that there were significant barriers to women receiving breast-conserving therapy based on their type of insurance and having a lower socioeconomic status.²⁰

The treatment of breast cancer is best delivered in a multimodality setting, but many inner-city public hospitals do not have such a facility for their patients. QHC is the only public hospital in New York City that has established a comprehensive cancer center. The patient population of QHC is overwhelmingly of minority origin (only 5% of patients are white). In addition, it is a safety net hospital, so no patient is turned away because they cannot pay, and most patients are of lower socioeconomic status and do not have insurance. The purpose of the cancer center was to provide a single site at which our patients could receive all their treatment. It was to ensure that our patients had easy access to care and treatment during all phases of their disease trajectory and did not “fall through the cracks” of the system. Those goals were addressed by having all of the center’s physicians in one place. Physicians involved in care included medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, a gynecologic oncologist, a genitourinary oncologist, and a thoracic surgery oncologist. The support groups organized for the cancer patients included 3 oncology social workers, an oncology navigator, a nutritionist, a pastoral care supporter, and an oncology psychologist, all located in the same area. All of the clerical and financial aspects of care were also placed within the center. This made the experience as seamless as possible for both the patients and the treating physicians. A “survivors clinic” was established so the cancer patients could be seen by integrated primary care providers to address all noncancer-related health issues such as hypertension, diabetes, or heart disease. Finally, a robust clinical oncology research team was established in the same location. The research included several protocols for new drug treatments for breast cancer from pharmaceutical companies as well as the multi-institutional oncology groups.

Part of the mission of the cancer center was to reach out into the community of Queens to provide education about early detection, cancer prevention, and other public health issues such as tobacco cessation. We established a close working relationship with the Queens Public Library System to connect with their users and dispense information about cancer care and early detection. The Queens Library system is the largest in the United States, and everyone who lives in Queens has easy access to one of its 63 branch libraries. We arranged several lectures about breast cancer awareness in some of the branch libraries. We also procured a mobile mammogram unit for free screening events at the lectures, especially in neighborhoods with a large number residents who were of lower socioeconomic status.

To study the possible effect of these changes on our patients with breast cancer, we compared 2 groups of patients. One group was from the year 2000, a year before the cancer center was opened. The other was from the year 2008, the last year we could get real 5-year survival statistics. We explored how establishing the cancer center might have changed the patients’ stage at diagnosis, care, treatment modalities such as type of surgery, and outcomes. It is difficult to compare these 2 groups because of differences in the patients’ cancers, such as their receptor status, as well as differences in treatment options between the two time periods. However, we had no other way to compare the data to see if there were any trends.

There was a migration to earlier-stage cancer at diagnosis during the 6-year period after the cancer center was opened. It is likely that the educational sessions that were done in the community contributed to this migration. We also saw an increase in the number of mammograms done, from 6,300 in 2000 to 8,800 in 2008. This increase in screening also could account for more patients being identified with earlier-stage disease and might be attributable to the community education through the outreach programs.

As a quality control method, the cancer center has been evaluated by the Commission on Cancer every 3 years. At the 2013 evaluation, we received the Gold Commendation – the highest possible recognition for having 8 out of 8 commendations – and a 3-year accreditation.

There was a notable increase in the use of lumpectomy over mastectomy after the establishment of the cancer center, possibly due to the addition of 2 surgical oncologists to the cancer center’s care team. The integration of multimodiality care for each patient may also have increased the use of breast-conserving surgery.

There was a significant increase from 2000 to 2008 in the survival of patients treated for stage III breast cancer. New drugs and new patterns of adjuvant care might have been partly responsible for that change. The establishment of the comprehensive cancer center with access to new protocols ensured that patients received state-of-the-art cancer treatment. Moreover, the facility addressed all aspects of patient care throughout the disease trajectory by including designated social workers, psychologists, a nutritionist, pastoral care, and patient and survivor support groups to ensure that patients would keep coming to the center for their therapy, with no delays and very little loss to follow-up.

Most patients without insurance were able to acquire emergency Medicaid through the cancer center. This was done by having 2 financial counselors who met with every patient and who could facilitate access to Medicaid as needed. As a result of that, the percentage of patients with no coverage went from 86% in 2000 to 16% in 2008. Before this system was set up, patients who were designated self-pay would pay a fee as low as $15 for each visit and received thousands of dollars’ worth of care. Thus, by forming a cancer center and facilitating patient access to Medicaid, we were able to save money for this public institution because of the gain in revenue from Medicaid.

Our findings suggest that the development of comprehensive cancer centers within inner-city health systems can ensure better treatment for patients of lower socioeconomic status. We present evidence that this may result in increased survival, more sophisticated surgical options, and better patient quality of life. Moreover, this can be achieved while effectively increasing revenue for the public hospitals. Correcting the inequality of access to care and better therapeutic options by setting up comprehensive cancer centers could contribute to improved parity of outcomes for underserved populations.
 

The author acknowledges the statistical help of Brian Altonen, MPH.

When cancer care is centralized in a comprehensive fashion, the quality of care and the outcomes improve.^1,2 Unfortunately, because of the medical insurance structure in New York City, most patients of lower socioeconomic status do not receive their cancer care in such dedicated cancer centers. In New York City, the majority of the underserved vulnerable populations – that is, those without health insurance – receive their care from the public hospital system known as NYC Health and Hospitals. Cancer care in this system is not centralized and may result in fragmented implementation of various modalities of treatment. In addition, because there is no centralized care, needs such as early screening and prevention programs are often not addressed. This problem was evident in Queens in 2000 and before when many patients with late-stage cancers were presenting for cancer care. Queens, which is one of the 5 boroughs of New York City, has more than 2.3 million residents. It has 2 public hospitals, Elmhurst Hospital Center and Queens Hospital Center (QHC). In 2001, the plan was devised for the establishment of a cancer center at QHC, mainly because of the high rate of late-stage cancers that were being seen at presentation and recognition of the need for more comprehensive care. In 2002, the Queens Cancer Center (QCC) began to see patients. QCC is a single facility that provides medical, surgical, radiation, gynecologic, and urologic oncology all in one area of the QHC.

This study is an investigation of the possible impact on care for breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status who were treated at a comprehensive cancer center, with specific consideration of the change or improvement in treatment modalities and outcomes. Data on treatment modalities and outcomes of cancer patients who were treated at the QHC during 2000, before the QCC was set up, were compared with data of patients treated during 2008 (2008 was selected because we have 5-year survival data for those patients). The public hospital system treats all patients regardless of their ability to pay, so the majority of patients in the system are of lower socioeconomic status. In addition, 92% of the patients seen QHC are from a minority population. These are the populations that tend to have a worse prognosis and often are not given optimal treatment.³ The payer mix of patients in the public hospital system is different than that of private hospitals. Most of the patients present at the hospital with no insurance and if they are diagnosed with cancer they may be converted to emergency Medicaid. About 10% of patients will not be converted because of their document status.
 

Patients and methods

We used the Queens Hospital Tumor Registry to identify the patients who had been diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer in 2000 and 2008. The electronic medical records were reviewed, and in the case of the 2000-year patients, the written charts were also reviewed. The study was approved by the Mount Sinai institutional review board. It was not necessary to obtain patient consent because it was a retrospective study.

Only patients diagnosed with stage 0, I, II, or III breast cancer who received their treatment at QHC were included in the study. Patients who were seen in consultation at QHC but not treated there were excluded. Statistics were done using the 2x2 chi-squared SPSS analysis; a P value of .05 was considered significant. The survival data was analyzed using SAS.

Results

There were 24 evaluable patients in 2000 and 78 evaluable patients in 2008 who had stage 0, I, II, or III primary breast cancer and were treated at QHC. The average age of the patients in 2000 was 53.5 years and 54.7 years in 2008. The mean age for both groups was 55 years. The patients were ethnically diverse in both groups with 46% black, 17% Hispanic, 25% ethnic Asian Indian, and 6% white (Figure 1).

The payer mix in 2000 was 9 patients (37.5%) self-pay, 7 (29%) Medicaid, and 8 (33%) Medicare. In 2008, 11 patients (14%) were self-pay, 46 (59%) Medicaid, 11 (14%) Medicare, and 10 (13%) were private insurance. In 2000, there were 3 (12%) patients with stage 0 disease, 5 (21%) with stage I; 9 (37.5%) with stage II, and 7 (29%) with stage III. In 2008 there were 28 (36%) patients with stage 0 disease, 15 (19%) with stage I, 17 (22%) with stage II, and 18 (23%) with stage III (Figure 2).

Discussion

There have been numerous studies reporting on disparities in the treatment of patients with breast cancer based on race or socioeconomic status.^4-18 Many studies have shown inferior survival for black women with breast cancer, but it is not entirely clear whether these differences are the result of the quality of medical care received or biologic differences.^14,19 A moderately large study from a metropolitan medical center in Detroit showed no difference in survival in their patients based on race when all of the patients received equal treatments.¹⁵ A meta-analysis of survival in black and white breast cancer patients showed that the black women had significantly poorer outcomes.¹⁹

Findings from a recent study showed that patients of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to undergo mastectomy than breast conserving therapy.²⁰ The study, which identified 727,927 patients with early-stage breast cancer during 1998-2011, found that the rate of breast conservation increased from 54% to 59% during that time period and that there were significant barriers to women receiving breast-conserving therapy based on their type of insurance and having a lower socioeconomic status.²⁰

The treatment of breast cancer is best delivered in a multimodality setting, but many inner-city public hospitals do not have such a facility for their patients. QHC is the only public hospital in New York City that has established a comprehensive cancer center. The patient population of QHC is overwhelmingly of minority origin (only 5% of patients are white). In addition, it is a safety net hospital, so no patient is turned away because they cannot pay, and most patients are of lower socioeconomic status and do not have insurance. The purpose of the cancer center was to provide a single site at which our patients could receive all their treatment. It was to ensure that our patients had easy access to care and treatment during all phases of their disease trajectory and did not “fall through the cracks” of the system. Those goals were addressed by having all of the center’s physicians in one place. Physicians involved in care included medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, a gynecologic oncologist, a genitourinary oncologist, and a thoracic surgery oncologist. The support groups organized for the cancer patients included 3 oncology social workers, an oncology navigator, a nutritionist, a pastoral care supporter, and an oncology psychologist, all located in the same area. All of the clerical and financial aspects of care were also placed within the center. This made the experience as seamless as possible for both the patients and the treating physicians. A “survivors clinic” was established so the cancer patients could be seen by integrated primary care providers to address all noncancer-related health issues such as hypertension, diabetes, or heart disease. Finally, a robust clinical oncology research team was established in the same location. The research included several protocols for new drug treatments for breast cancer from pharmaceutical companies as well as the multi-institutional oncology groups.

Part of the mission of the cancer center was to reach out into the community of Queens to provide education about early detection, cancer prevention, and other public health issues such as tobacco cessation. We established a close working relationship with the Queens Public Library System to connect with their users and dispense information about cancer care and early detection. The Queens Library system is the largest in the United States, and everyone who lives in Queens has easy access to one of its 63 branch libraries. We arranged several lectures about breast cancer awareness in some of the branch libraries. We also procured a mobile mammogram unit for free screening events at the lectures, especially in neighborhoods with a large number residents who were of lower socioeconomic status.

To study the possible effect of these changes on our patients with breast cancer, we compared 2 groups of patients. One group was from the year 2000, a year before the cancer center was opened. The other was from the year 2008, the last year we could get real 5-year survival statistics. We explored how establishing the cancer center might have changed the patients’ stage at diagnosis, care, treatment modalities such as type of surgery, and outcomes. It is difficult to compare these 2 groups because of differences in the patients’ cancers, such as their receptor status, as well as differences in treatment options between the two time periods. However, we had no other way to compare the data to see if there were any trends.

There was a migration to earlier-stage cancer at diagnosis during the 6-year period after the cancer center was opened. It is likely that the educational sessions that were done in the community contributed to this migration. We also saw an increase in the number of mammograms done, from 6,300 in 2000 to 8,800 in 2008. This increase in screening also could account for more patients being identified with earlier-stage disease and might be attributable to the community education through the outreach programs.

As a quality control method, the cancer center has been evaluated by the Commission on Cancer every 3 years. At the 2013 evaluation, we received the Gold Commendation – the highest possible recognition for having 8 out of 8 commendations – and a 3-year accreditation.

There was a notable increase in the use of lumpectomy over mastectomy after the establishment of the cancer center, possibly due to the addition of 2 surgical oncologists to the cancer center’s care team. The integration of multimodiality care for each patient may also have increased the use of breast-conserving surgery.

There was a significant increase from 2000 to 2008 in the survival of patients treated for stage III breast cancer. New drugs and new patterns of adjuvant care might have been partly responsible for that change. The establishment of the comprehensive cancer center with access to new protocols ensured that patients received state-of-the-art cancer treatment. Moreover, the facility addressed all aspects of patient care throughout the disease trajectory by including designated social workers, psychologists, a nutritionist, pastoral care, and patient and survivor support groups to ensure that patients would keep coming to the center for their therapy, with no delays and very little loss to follow-up.

Most patients without insurance were able to acquire emergency Medicaid through the cancer center. This was done by having 2 financial counselors who met with every patient and who could facilitate access to Medicaid as needed. As a result of that, the percentage of patients with no coverage went from 86% in 2000 to 16% in 2008. Before this system was set up, patients who were designated self-pay would pay a fee as low as $15 for each visit and received thousands of dollars’ worth of care. Thus, by forming a cancer center and facilitating patient access to Medicaid, we were able to save money for this public institution because of the gain in revenue from Medicaid.

Our findings suggest that the development of comprehensive cancer centers within inner-city health systems can ensure better treatment for patients of lower socioeconomic status. We present evidence that this may result in increased survival, more sophisticated surgical options, and better patient quality of life. Moreover, this can be achieved while effectively increasing revenue for the public hospitals. Correcting the inequality of access to care and better therapeutic options by setting up comprehensive cancer centers could contribute to improved parity of outcomes for underserved populations.
 

The author acknowledges the statistical help of Brian Altonen, MPH.

When cancer care is centralized in a comprehensive fashion, the quality of care and the outcomes improve.^1,2 Unfortunately, because of the medical insurance structure in New York City, most patients of lower socioeconomic status do not receive their cancer care in such dedicated cancer centers. In New York City, the majority of the underserved vulnerable populations – that is, those without health insurance – receive their care from the public hospital system known as NYC Health and Hospitals. Cancer care in this system is not centralized and may result in fragmented implementation of various modalities of treatment. In addition, because there is no centralized care, needs such as early screening and prevention programs are often not addressed. This problem was evident in Queens in 2000 and before when many patients with late-stage cancers were presenting for cancer care. Queens, which is one of the 5 boroughs of New York City, has more than 2.3 million residents. It has 2 public hospitals, Elmhurst Hospital Center and Queens Hospital Center (QHC). In 2001, the plan was devised for the establishment of a cancer center at QHC, mainly because of the high rate of late-stage cancers that were being seen at presentation and recognition of the need for more comprehensive care. In 2002, the Queens Cancer Center (QCC) began to see patients. QCC is a single facility that provides medical, surgical, radiation, gynecologic, and urologic oncology all in one area of the QHC.

This study is an investigation of the possible impact on care for breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status who were treated at a comprehensive cancer center, with specific consideration of the change or improvement in treatment modalities and outcomes. Data on treatment modalities and outcomes of cancer patients who were treated at the QHC during 2000, before the QCC was set up, were compared with data of patients treated during 2008 (2008 was selected because we have 5-year survival data for those patients). The public hospital system treats all patients regardless of their ability to pay, so the majority of patients in the system are of lower socioeconomic status. In addition, 92% of the patients seen QHC are from a minority population. These are the populations that tend to have a worse prognosis and often are not given optimal treatment.³ The payer mix of patients in the public hospital system is different than that of private hospitals. Most of the patients present at the hospital with no insurance and if they are diagnosed with cancer they may be converted to emergency Medicaid. About 10% of patients will not be converted because of their document status.
 

Patients and methods

We used the Queens Hospital Tumor Registry to identify the patients who had been diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer in 2000 and 2008. The electronic medical records were reviewed, and in the case of the 2000-year patients, the written charts were also reviewed. The study was approved by the Mount Sinai institutional review board. It was not necessary to obtain patient consent because it was a retrospective study.

Only patients diagnosed with stage 0, I, II, or III breast cancer who received their treatment at QHC were included in the study. Patients who were seen in consultation at QHC but not treated there were excluded. Statistics were done using the 2x2 chi-squared SPSS analysis; a P value of .05 was considered significant. The survival data was analyzed using SAS.

Results

There were 24 evaluable patients in 2000 and 78 evaluable patients in 2008 who had stage 0, I, II, or III primary breast cancer and were treated at QHC. The average age of the patients in 2000 was 53.5 years and 54.7 years in 2008. The mean age for both groups was 55 years. The patients were ethnically diverse in both groups with 46% black, 17% Hispanic, 25% ethnic Asian Indian, and 6% white (Figure 1).

The payer mix in 2000 was 9 patients (37.5%) self-pay, 7 (29%) Medicaid, and 8 (33%) Medicare. In 2008, 11 patients (14%) were self-pay, 46 (59%) Medicaid, 11 (14%) Medicare, and 10 (13%) were private insurance. In 2000, there were 3 (12%) patients with stage 0 disease, 5 (21%) with stage I; 9 (37.5%) with stage II, and 7 (29%) with stage III. In 2008 there were 28 (36%) patients with stage 0 disease, 15 (19%) with stage I, 17 (22%) with stage II, and 18 (23%) with stage III (Figure 2).

Discussion

There have been numerous studies reporting on disparities in the treatment of patients with breast cancer based on race or socioeconomic status.^4-18 Many studies have shown inferior survival for black women with breast cancer, but it is not entirely clear whether these differences are the result of the quality of medical care received or biologic differences.^14,19 A moderately large study from a metropolitan medical center in Detroit showed no difference in survival in their patients based on race when all of the patients received equal treatments.¹⁵ A meta-analysis of survival in black and white breast cancer patients showed that the black women had significantly poorer outcomes.¹⁹

Findings from a recent study showed that patients of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to undergo mastectomy than breast conserving therapy.²⁰ The study, which identified 727,927 patients with early-stage breast cancer during 1998-2011, found that the rate of breast conservation increased from 54% to 59% during that time period and that there were significant barriers to women receiving breast-conserving therapy based on their type of insurance and having a lower socioeconomic status.²⁰

The treatment of breast cancer is best delivered in a multimodality setting, but many inner-city public hospitals do not have such a facility for their patients. QHC is the only public hospital in New York City that has established a comprehensive cancer center. The patient population of QHC is overwhelmingly of minority origin (only 5% of patients are white). In addition, it is a safety net hospital, so no patient is turned away because they cannot pay, and most patients are of lower socioeconomic status and do not have insurance. The purpose of the cancer center was to provide a single site at which our patients could receive all their treatment. It was to ensure that our patients had easy access to care and treatment during all phases of their disease trajectory and did not “fall through the cracks” of the system. Those goals were addressed by having all of the center’s physicians in one place. Physicians involved in care included medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, a gynecologic oncologist, a genitourinary oncologist, and a thoracic surgery oncologist. The support groups organized for the cancer patients included 3 oncology social workers, an oncology navigator, a nutritionist, a pastoral care supporter, and an oncology psychologist, all located in the same area. All of the clerical and financial aspects of care were also placed within the center. This made the experience as seamless as possible for both the patients and the treating physicians. A “survivors clinic” was established so the cancer patients could be seen by integrated primary care providers to address all noncancer-related health issues such as hypertension, diabetes, or heart disease. Finally, a robust clinical oncology research team was established in the same location. The research included several protocols for new drug treatments for breast cancer from pharmaceutical companies as well as the multi-institutional oncology groups.

Part of the mission of the cancer center was to reach out into the community of Queens to provide education about early detection, cancer prevention, and other public health issues such as tobacco cessation. We established a close working relationship with the Queens Public Library System to connect with their users and dispense information about cancer care and early detection. The Queens Library system is the largest in the United States, and everyone who lives in Queens has easy access to one of its 63 branch libraries. We arranged several lectures about breast cancer awareness in some of the branch libraries. We also procured a mobile mammogram unit for free screening events at the lectures, especially in neighborhoods with a large number residents who were of lower socioeconomic status.

To study the possible effect of these changes on our patients with breast cancer, we compared 2 groups of patients. One group was from the year 2000, a year before the cancer center was opened. The other was from the year 2008, the last year we could get real 5-year survival statistics. We explored how establishing the cancer center might have changed the patients’ stage at diagnosis, care, treatment modalities such as type of surgery, and outcomes. It is difficult to compare these 2 groups because of differences in the patients’ cancers, such as their receptor status, as well as differences in treatment options between the two time periods. However, we had no other way to compare the data to see if there were any trends.

There was a migration to earlier-stage cancer at diagnosis during the 6-year period after the cancer center was opened. It is likely that the educational sessions that were done in the community contributed to this migration. We also saw an increase in the number of mammograms done, from 6,300 in 2000 to 8,800 in 2008. This increase in screening also could account for more patients being identified with earlier-stage disease and might be attributable to the community education through the outreach programs.

As a quality control method, the cancer center has been evaluated by the Commission on Cancer every 3 years. At the 2013 evaluation, we received the Gold Commendation – the highest possible recognition for having 8 out of 8 commendations – and a 3-year accreditation.

There was a notable increase in the use of lumpectomy over mastectomy after the establishment of the cancer center, possibly due to the addition of 2 surgical oncologists to the cancer center’s care team. The integration of multimodiality care for each patient may also have increased the use of breast-conserving surgery.

There was a significant increase from 2000 to 2008 in the survival of patients treated for stage III breast cancer. New drugs and new patterns of adjuvant care might have been partly responsible for that change. The establishment of the comprehensive cancer center with access to new protocols ensured that patients received state-of-the-art cancer treatment. Moreover, the facility addressed all aspects of patient care throughout the disease trajectory by including designated social workers, psychologists, a nutritionist, pastoral care, and patient and survivor support groups to ensure that patients would keep coming to the center for their therapy, with no delays and very little loss to follow-up.

Most patients without insurance were able to acquire emergency Medicaid through the cancer center. This was done by having 2 financial counselors who met with every patient and who could facilitate access to Medicaid as needed. As a result of that, the percentage of patients with no coverage went from 86% in 2000 to 16% in 2008. Before this system was set up, patients who were designated self-pay would pay a fee as low as $15 for each visit and received thousands of dollars’ worth of care. Thus, by forming a cancer center and facilitating patient access to Medicaid, we were able to save money for this public institution because of the gain in revenue from Medicaid.

Our findings suggest that the development of comprehensive cancer centers within inner-city health systems can ensure better treatment for patients of lower socioeconomic status. We present evidence that this may result in increased survival, more sophisticated surgical options, and better patient quality of life. Moreover, this can be achieved while effectively increasing revenue for the public hospitals. Correcting the inequality of access to care and better therapeutic options by setting up comprehensive cancer centers could contribute to improved parity of outcomes for underserved populations.
 

The author acknowledges the statistical help of Brian Altonen, MPH.